Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 5th, 2014 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Ruth the Moabitess: Lesbian Jewess

Ruth the Moabitess: Lesbian Jewess


In the course of researching my recent article on male homosexuality in the (Written) Torah (1) I came across a mention of a particular passage in the Tanakh (aka the ‘Jewish Bible’) from the book of Ruth, which implies some kind of lesbianism. Now the subject of lesbianism; or female homosexuality, is famous to any student of the subject of homosexuality or biblical criticism.

The reason for this is that while the Tanakh mentions male homosexuality frequently and specifically: there is no mention of any laws regarding lesbianism. Indeed even the normally voluble rabbinic literature has next to nothing to say on the matter and there are suggestions that such behaviour may be rife even among the strictest of ultra-Orthodox women. (2)

The lack of mention of lesbianism in both the Tanakh and the resultant rabbinics (as even the Talmuds are uncharacteristically silent on the issue) suggests that for jews: lesbianism has never actually been seen as a problem even though it has certainly existed within the religious jewish community both historically and currently.

This informs us that there is tacit approval of this behaviour on the part of jewesses from rabbinical authorities. Who; as far as I can ascertain, appear to have long held to a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding it.

The only story in the Tanakh that appears to deal with lesbianism is that of Ruth the Moabitess and Na’omi. The text runs thus:

‘Then she started with her daughters-in-law to return from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord had visited his people and given them food. So she set out from the place where she was, with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah. But Na’omi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go, return each of you to her mother’s house. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. The Lord grant that you may find a home, each of you in the house of her husband!” Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voices and wept. And they said to her, “No, we will return with you to your people.” But Na’omi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Have I sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the Lord has gone against me.” Then they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her.

And she said, “See your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Entreat me not to leave you or return from following you; for where I go I will go, and where you lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if death parts me from you.” And Na’omi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more.’ (3)

Now in order to understand the lesbian implication of this text: we need to note that Ruth’s actions in relation of Na’omi are; whatever your view on the matter, simply weird. She has lost her husband and her mother-in-law doesn’t want her to accompany her in her travels back to her people (the jews).

Ruth is in the land of her parents; Moab, and can easily return to her mother’s house so that her mother can arrange another marriage for her as would have been the custom. Like her fellow countrywoman Orpah; Ruth has every reason to want to go back to her mother. As opposed to accompanying her foreign mother-in-law Na’omi back to the land of Israel: where; as the text tells us, Ruth will be subject to a god that is not her own.

Indeed the only explicitly stated reason for Ruth to go with Na’omi; to attain a good marriage, is directly ruled out by Na’omi: when she firmly tells Ruth that she can bear no more sons and that she does not think that Ruth will be able to be celibate until these hypothetical sons have grown into manhood. (4) It is at this point that Orpah decides; in spite of her otherwise steadfast loyalty to her mother-in-law, that it would be best (as well as polite) to return to her mother’s house as she was bade.

In direct contrast to this Ruth simply refuses to do so.

Instead she pledges that she will follow Na’omi wherever she goes, shall become part of Na’omi’s people because Na’omi is part of them, that Na’omi’s god is her god and that should Na’omi die then she will die. Further Ruth invokes Yahweh to the effect that if Na’omi should die then she should not then he can do anything he wants to her as punishment.

This is hardly a normal commitment or relationship. Indeed while Orpah’s less obstinate refusal to leave and her kissing of her mother-in-law is suggestive of something more than simply family ties from marriage: Ruth’s clinging to Na’omi, inexplicable obstinacy and extreme pledges to her speak of more than familial love, but rather romantic and/or sexually-based love.

After all even if you were to be thrown in such a bad situation as that suggested by the text of Ruth (with husbands and father-in-law all dead with no sons left to inherit) while you are in the land of your people (Moab): then it simply makes no sense to be desperate to follow your mother-in-law to unknown parts to a completely uncertain future. As opposed to going back to your mother’s house so that she could arrange a new match for you: as was then the custom in the Middle East.

It could be argued; and indeed has been, that Ruth had nothing to go back to (or feared to go back) and so needed to go with Na’omi. However there is nothing in the text to inform us of this and we cannot but work with the text we have as opposed to what could be suggested by applying common human situations to the text.

Suggesting that there was at least a lesbian attraction on Ruth’s part in regard to Na’omi overcomes the difficulties created by applying common human situations to the text: precisely because it adds nothing to the text and explains the ‘why’ of Ruth’s inexplicable behaviour, while merely offering an (obvious) rationale for the whole episode. Naturally we cannot actually say that Ruth ever consummated a relationship with Na’omi, but the text does seem to suggest that Na’omi was aware of Ruth’s feelings for her given how quickly she gives in when Orpah has left (which is another oddity: suggesting that Na’omi reciprocated; or was at least well aware, of the nature of Ruth’s feelings about her).

After all what possible reason was there for Ruth to do what she did unless she did it for love of her mother-in-law?


References


(1) This is available at the following address: http://www.semiticcontroversies.blog...-in-torah.html
(2) Cf. Reva Mann, 2007, ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter: A True Story of Sex, Drugs and Orthodoxy’, 1st Edition, Hodder: London
(3) Ruth 1:6-18 (RSV)
(4) Note the necessary implication of this statement by Na’omi is that non-jews are prone to be sexually profligate while jews are not prone to be so.

-----------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...an-jewess.html
__________________
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 AM.
Page generated in 0.20355 seconds.