Naomi (Music)

759 Naomi I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. 760 Naomi Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Judaism Christianity Literature Visual Arts Music Film I. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Naomi is one of the dramatis personae of the book of Ruth, which is set by its author “in the days that the judges judged” (Ruth 1:1). She is introduced as wife of Elimelech and mother of Mahlon and Chilion, all of whom journeyed to Moab from Bethlehem, due to famine. By the fifth verse in the book’s first chapter, her husband and sons are dead, leaving Naomi with only her Moabite daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:1–5). Shortly thereafter, Orpah too exits the stage (Ruth 1:14). Against Naomi’s protestations, Ruth ties her own fate to her mother-in-law’s, joining Naomi on her journey back to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:4b, 8–19a). Upon the arrival of Naomi and Ruth, the women of Bethlehem enigmatically exclaim, like the chorus of a Greek tragedy: “Is this Naomi?!” (Ruth 1:19b). The name Naomi (MT Nāŏmî; LXX: Νωεμιν/Νωεμμειν, etc.; Josephus, Ant. 5: Ναάμις; see below “II. Judaism A. Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism”) has connotations of pleasantness or loveliness. Bemoaning her wretched lot, Naomi rejects this name, demanding to be called Mara – bitterness (Ruth 1:20; cf. 1:13). Her wish is never fulfilled. Naomi indicated to her daughters-in-law that Bethlehem would offer them no eligible suitors (Ruth 1:8–15). Nevertheless, Boaz, Naomi’s relation through her deceased husband, promptly surfaces (Ruth 2:1–3). Ruth’s and Boaz’s paths cross when Ruth happens upon his field in search of overlooked crops to glean (Ruth 2:3). In hopes of securing a “redeemer,” Naomi orchestrates the seduction of Boaz. She instructs Ruth to bathe and perfume herself, steal into the threshing floor under the cover of night, approach Boaz, expose his “feet,” and lie beside him; Boaz would tell Ruth what to do next (Ruth 3:1–4). Naomi is at once dependent upon the goodwill of others for sustenance (Ruth 2) and in the position to sell real estate (Ruth 4:3), which Boaz duly acquires when he purchases his bride (Ruth 4:9–12). Curiously, when Ruth gives birth to her first child, the chorus of women declares: “A son has been born to Naomi!” (Ruth 4:17). Naomi and Ruth alternate as primary characters, but they also share the stage in several scenes. Accordingly, some view the novella as virtually indivisible, highlighting the intimate bond between these two women – perhaps one with romantic un- Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 dertones (Ruth 1:16–17; 3:4–5; 4:15; cf. 1 Sam 1:8, cf. Alpert). Others suggest the presence of intertwined erstwhile-distinct narratives: a Naomi tradition and a Ruth tradition (cf. Brenner). Bibliography: ■ Alpert, R. T., “Finding our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (ed. J. A. Kates/G. T. Reimer; New York 1994) 91–96. ■ Brenner, A., “Naomi and Ruth,” VT 33.4 (1983) 385–97. ■ Schipper, J., Ruth (AB 7D; New Haven, CT 2016). ■ Stanton, M./P. Venter, “Die juridiese problematiek van grondbesit in die boek Rut,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 62.1 (2006) 235–51. ■ Zakovitch, Y., Ruth (Miqra Le-Yiśrael; Tel Aviv 1990). [Heb.] Idan Dershowitz II. Judaism ■ Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism ■ Rabbinic Judaism ■ Medieval Judaism ■ Modern Judaism A. Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism The earliest example of an interpretation of the character of Naomi comes in the Septuagint. Throughout the LXX version of Ruth, Hebrew names are transliterated, ignoring their Hebrew meaning. However, when Naomi’s self-naming of mārā is rendered Πικράν (bitter), rather than transliterated, the translation emphasizes her hardship. The lack of translation of the root of Naomi’s name n––m (pleasant) misses the full symbolism of the interplay between these two names (Beattie: 10), thus downplaying her reversal of fortune. Josephus retells the story of Ruth in his Jewish Antiquities, and it stands as the primary example of a Second Temple interpretation of Naomi. He emphasizes both Naomi’s hardship and her reversal. While Naomi’s speech in 1:20–21 is shortened to include only the phrase “more rightly would you call me Mara” (Ant. 5.323), Josephus describes Naomi as “sorely disheartened at her misfortune and unable to bear that bereavement” (Ant. 5.320). He also highlights what the LXX has obscured, providing the Hebrew meaning of both ναάμις and μαρά (Ant. 5.323). Josephus at times gives Naomi additional agency and subjectivity. In chapter 1, Naomi becomes solely responsible for Ruth’s travel to Bethlehem, as Naomi “took (ἀπήγαγε) her [Ruth] with her, to be her partner” (Ant. 5.322), as opposed to the cooperative “went together” in LXX (ἐπορεθησαν ἀμφότεραι) and MT (watēlaknâ šĕtêhem) in 1:19 (Feldman: 512–14). Naomi receives a more active role in the last chapter as well (Ant. 5.325), where Josephus has Naomi name Ruth’s child (ἐκάλεσεν), rather than the women of the neighborhood as in 4:17 in both the LXX (ἐκάλεσαν) and MT (watiqrenâ) (Sterling: 120). Naomi’s motivations are also explained by Josephus throughout, such as in her plan to have Ruth visit Boaz on the threshing floor, where Naomi “schemed to bring Ruth to his side, deeming 761 Naomi that he would be gracious to them after consorting with the child” (Ant. 5.328). With regard to Boaz, however, Josephus minimizes the agency of Naomi. In the clearest example of this interpretation, Sterling points out that Josephus fails to include either of the parallel usages of “security/rest” (mĕnûhø â/ἀνάπαυσιν) by Naomi, either her prayer in Ruth 1:9 or Naomi’s declaration in 3:1 that she will provide that security/rest for Ruth herself. Rather, Josephus has Naomi declare that Boaz might provide the care (προνοήσειεν) for her and Ruth (Ant. 5.327), and then the two women affirm that Boaz indeed will care (πρόνοιαν) for them (Ant. 5.332). Rather than Naomi providing security/rest for Ruth, it is Boaz providing care for both women, minimizing Naomi’s agency in Josephus’s interpretation (Sterling: 130). Bibliography: ■ Beattie, D. R. G., Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (Sheffield 1977). ■ Feldman, L., Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Leiden 2006). ■ Irwin, B. P., “Ruth 3: History of Interpretation,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament (ed. T. Longman/P. Enns; Downers Grove, IL 2008) 693–700. ■ Sterling, G., “The Invisible Presence: Josephus’s Retelling of Ruth,” in Understanding Josephus (ed. S. Mason; JSPSup 32; Sheffield 1998) 104–71. Benjamin Bixler B. Rabbinic Judaism The rabbis offer additional personal and biographical details for Naomi. Some are based on hints or allusions within the biblical text; others are pure creation. Thus, Naomi’s name derives from the fact that her actions were comely and sweet (naim; RutR 2:5). Naomi was pregnant upon her departure from Judah (the meaning of “I went away full” in Ruth 1:21) but she miscarried (RutR 3:7). The incredulity of the townsfolk upon Naomi’s return (“They said, ‘Is this Naomi?’” Ruth 1:19) is understood by the rabbis as a reaction to her shockingly reduced state, suggesting that before leaving Judah she was a noblewoman, carried about on a palanquin and accustomed to fine clothing and fine food (RutR 3:6). The misfortune that befell Naomi, her husband, and her sons, is interpreted as punishment for leaving the land of Israel, particularly in a time of famine when persons of means have a duty to help their countrymen (bBB 91a). Nevertheless, Naomi herself is counted among the righteous, so righteous that her departure from Moab to return to Judah made a great impression depriving the place of its splendor and glory like the departure of Jacob from Beersheva (RutR 2:12). Medieval midrashic works include Naomi in the list of twenty-two “women of valor” praised by Solomon in the last chapter of Proverbs (MidMish to Prov 31), and the words “she reaches forth her hand to the needy” (Prov 31:20) are understood to refer specifically to Naomi in her conduct towards Ruth. Naomi is represented in the midrash as especially solicitous of Ruth (albeit on occasion embarrassed Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 762 by her lowly foreign origin; RutZ 1:8), and in general the rabbis credit Ruth’s love for and devotion to Naomi as motivating the former’s decision to join the people of Israel. Nevertheless, one exceptional midrashic passage describes Ruth (against the grain of the biblical text) as a religious convert motivated by her zeal for Israel’s god. In this atypical but oftcited passage, Naomi undertakes to convert Ruth on the model of a rabbinic conversion, informing her of the difficulties and restrictions that will be placed on her should she decide to convert (RutR 2:22). With the exception of this passage, rabbinic midrashim stress the close personal bond between the two women. The Targum interprets Ruth 3:1, as Naomi’s oath to provide for Ruth, an oath she was anxious to fulfill by ensuring her marriage. Her subsequent proposal of a nighttime rendezvous between Ruth and Boaz was formulated in virtue and righteousness, and Ruth obeyed Naomi’s instructions despite some qualms (RutRab 3:12–13). In keeping with the marginality of male figures in the biblical book, the rabbis claims that Naomi raised Obed (the son of Ruth and Boaz; bSan 19b) and that Boaz died immediately after the marriage (YalqShim Ruth 608) Bibliography: ■ Angel, H., “A midrashic view of Ruth amidst a sea of ambiguity,” JBQ 33.2 (2005) 91–99. ■ Ginzberg, L., Legends of the Jews, 2 vols. (New York 22003). ■ Magonet, J., “Rabbinic Readings of Ruth,” European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe 40.2 (2007) 150–57. ■ Meir, T., “Naomi: Midrash and Aggadah,” Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia (December 31, 1999; Jewish Women’s Archive; https://jwa.org/encyclopedia). Christine Hayes C. Medieval Judaism Medieval Jewish commentators (11th through 16th cent.) explore the development of Naomi’s character by tracing how she transforms from a passive victim of life’s circumstances to someone who takes decisive action in order to change her destiny. 1. Why did Naomi Leave Bethlehem? Naomi’s culpability in leaving the land of Israel with her family during a famine is a subject of considerable discussion, mostly negative. Some exegetes absolve Naomi of guilt because she is subordinate to her husband’s will (a version of Rashi 1:3, cf. RutR 1:5; Moses Alshekh 1:1). Conversely, Samuel b. Isaac de Uҫeda (1:1) posits that she should have tried to sway Elimelech not to abandon his fellow Jews. Abraham Saba (1:2) suggests that Elimelech is named “Naomi’s husband” (Ruth 1:3), for he died because of her sins. Even if he were miserly, she, as a woman, should have been charitable. Naomi is also censured for remaining with her two sons in Moab after Elimelech’s death (Eleazar of Worms 1:3; Sforno 1:3) and for not preventing them from marrying Moabite women (Alshekh 1:1–2, 5). Naomi is only saved by God’s mercy presumably to establish, 763 Naomi through Ruth who clings to her, the Davidic monarchy (Saba 1:3; Alshekh 1:2, 5). 2. Why Did Naomi Return? For the most part Naomi’s decision to return to her homeland is looked at favorably. Joseph ibn Yah ya (1:6–7) infers that when this “notable and God-fearing woman” recognizes that God has caused her suffering, she immediately gets up to leave Moab even before hearing that the famine is over. Solomon ha-Levi Alqabets (1:7) praises “the righteous Naomi” for returning impoverished and humiliated, for she seeks to teach God’s just ways for punishing her; this embarrassment will be her atonement. On the other hand, Sforno (1:5, 6, 22) maintains Naomi only returns once the famine is over to reclaim her land, not to repent. 3. Naomi and her Daughters-in-law. Naomi’s motivation to leave Moab is amplified by her complex relationship with her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, as expressed in her farewell speech to them (Ruth 1:8–13). Presuming these Moabite women did not convert when they married, some commentators suggest that Naomi challenged their sincerity to want to join her people (e.g., Sforno 1:10, 11; Ibn Yah ya 1:8, 10). Assuming they did convert, as suggested by Ibn Ezra (1:15) and Ralbag (1:10), Naomi discourages them from returning with her in order to test the sincerity of their conversions (Ralbag 1:10, 14, 15; 2:12). Naomi also expresses sincere misgivings about being able to provide for their future. She is too old to marry, let alone bear sons, who would marry them. Even if this were possible, Naomi is loath to have them forfeit a married life in their youths (Rashi 1:12–13). Or, as Sforno (1:11–12) interprets, Naomi deters them from presuming she will have sons to protect them and help them find other suitable men to marry. Regretting the suffering they endured for her sins, she declares (Ruth 1:13), “It is more bitter for me than for you (mikkem)” (e.g., Sforno 1:13; de Uҫeda 1:12–13; Saba 1:9 on 1:13). Alternatively, based on the premise that Ruth and Orpah had not converted, other commentators infer that Naomi is embarrassed to be accompanied by these gentile women who will not be accepted into her Judean society (Avigdor Kohen Tsedeq 1:8, cf. RutZ 1:8; Alqabets 1:13). Accordingly, Naomi’s lament is rendered, “It is more bitter for me because of you – mikkem,” blaming Ruth and Orpah for her misfortunes (Alqabets, 1:13; also posited by Saba 1:9 on 1:13, cf. RutR 2:17). If they continue to cling to her, it will appear that she has not repented her sins (Alshekh 1:12). Naomi’s ambivalent and yet measured interest in Ruth, who insistently clings to her, reflects her role in ensuring that Ruth undergoes the complete conversion process (Rashi 1:16–17, cf. bYev 47a–b; Sforno 1:16). Impressed by Ruth’s sincere commitment, Naomi no longer tries to dissuade her (e.g., Rashi, Sforno, Ralbag 1:18 and Ralbag toelet ha-sheni). Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 764 4. Naomi’s Homecoming. Naomi’s poignant homecoming creates the backdrop for her transformation. Commentators assess that when the women of Bethlehem exclaim, “Is this Naomi?” (Ruth 1:19), they are censuring a former prominent noblewoman for her sinful departure to Moab (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Yah ya 1:19, cf. bBB 91a). The women are doubly bewildered by why Naomi does not return to an unknown locale to avoid embarrassment (de Uҫeda 1:19), and why Ruth the Moabite is with her (Saba 1:19). Naomi’s self-perception is reflected by changing her name from Naomi, which implies that her days have been spent pleasantly, to Mara (bitterness), for Shaddai – the God Who only provides enough (ha-dai) to those who do His will (Ibn Yah ya 1:21) has embittered her because of her sins by emptying her of sons, wealth (Rashi 1:21; Joseph Qara nusahø alef, nusahø bet 1:20, 21; Ibn Yah ya 1:21), and losing an unborn child (a version of Rashi, 1:21 and de Uҫeda, 1:20–21; cf. RutR 3:7). Naomi’s bitterness is exacerbated when she finds the entire city has survived the famine (a version of Rashi to 1:19). While she could have helped the poor and hungry, she left (halakhti) (Ruth 1:21), and God testifies that her intentions were selfish (de Uҫeda 1:20–21). Avigdor Kohen Tsedeq (1:20) associates her new name, Mara, with a bird’s crop (murah – cf. Lev 1:16), for Naomi confesses her tragedies were caused by neglecting to fill the throats of the poor during the famine. 5. Naomi and Ruth. Naomi’s positive turnaround is associated with her progressive attachment to Ruth. Indeed, once she confesses her sins publicly and assists Ruth’s conversion, her name, Naomi, is reinstated (de Uҫeda 1:22). Their bond demonstrates Naomi’s “righteousness and upright character,” for while a mother-in-law is not always partial to her beloved son’s wife, Naomi treats Ruth like a “daughter” (Saba 2:1). Thus, she advises Ruth how to glean modestly in the fields behind the workers (Alshekh 2:2), and later insists she glean only with the female gleaners, not the males as Ruth had indicated (e.g., Ibn Ezra, Sforno, and Ibn Yah ya 2:22; cf. RutR 5:11). 6. The Threshing-Floor Scene. Naomi’s “diligence” and “righteousness” are apparent when she initiates the process of finding Ruth a mate (Joseph ibn Kaspi 1:1 on 3:1; Saba 3:1) who will provide for her and not demean her (Qara nusah alef, nusah bet 3:1) even though Ruth’s remarriage will remind Naomi painfully of the loss of her son (Saba 3:1). Accordingly, Naomi’s unconventional proposal that Ruth accost Boaz stealthily at night is justified. Recognizing Boaz’s kindness to Ruth, Naomi seizes the moment to facilitate Ruth’s marriage to him, preempting other women, especially since he is their relative and potential redeemer (Qara nusahø bet 2:20; 3:1–5; Ralbag toelet aśirit; Saba 3:2). Naomi’s instructions to prepare Ruth for this encounter are 765 Naomi presumed to be noble-minded. Applying midrash, commentators conclude that Ruth performs additional conversion rituals and dresses in Sabbath garments (one version of Rashi and de Uҫeda, 3:3; Saba 3:2; cf. RutR 5:12). Ibn Ezra (3:3) infers she dresses and anoints herself like an aristocrat. Naomi instructs Ruth only to expose his feet (Ruth 3:4), “by way of modesty and humility,” and not lie by his head, unlike prostitutes who embrace the male, and she is to wait for him to speak lest she appear impertinent (Ibn Yah ya 3:4). Assuming Boaz will not sin with Ruth, Naomi only commands Ruth to ask his advice (Saba 3:4). Conversely, Ibn Yah ya (3:3) posits that Ruth performs ritual immersion, so that she will be pure if Boaz’s desire overwhelms him, and she wears pure, clean clothes, distinguishing her from a niddah. Naomi assures Ruth that she will succeed because Naomi’s own merit will accompany her, as implied by the ketiv, “I will go down – weyaradti” (Rashi 3:3, cf. RutR 5:12, yPeah 8:7). Commentators also infer that out of her love for Ruth and for her own benefit, Naomi aims to perpetuate the spirit of her deceased son, Mahlon, Ruth’s husband, through Ruth’s marriage to the redeemer of Naomi’s land (preferably Boaz) (de Uҫeda 3:1, 9; 4:10; Alqabets 4:5). Naomi seeks a leviratetype marriage that will carry on Mahlon’s memory through the redemption of his inheritance, which would always be referred to by his name, and that the progeny from this marriage would, as if, complete the deceased’s mitswah of marriage (Rashi 3:9; 4:5; Qara nusahø alef 3:9; 4:2–5; nusahø bet 2:20; 3:9; 4:5, 9–10; Ibn Yah ya 3:9; 4:10; Sforno 4:10). In fact, Sforno (3:1–3, 9–11; 4:5) uniquely posits that Naomi only intends for Ruth to seek Boaz’s advice as a redeemer who will facilitate the sale of her land that will serve as a dowry for Ruth, even if she does not marry Boaz. Reading kabbalistically, Alshekh (commentary to 1:9; 2:1, 2, 4, 21; 3:2–3, 4) assigns Naomi’s instructions a deeper significance. Ruth is the reincarnation of Lot’s eldest daughter, who begets her son, Moab, through incest (Gen 19), intending to repopulate the world after the destruction of Sodom and presumably all of humanity. This altruistic act is rewarded by establishing the Davidic monarchy through her descendant (cf. BerR 50:10; 51:8, 10; bYev 77a, b; bBQ 38b; RutR 2:15; 7:15). Naomi orchestrates Ruth’s approach to Boaz in a manner reminiscent of Lot’s daughter’s furtive actions to hint to him that Ruth is the selected Moabitess from whom will emerge the Davidic lineage through his levirate-type union with her (Alshekh 3:2–3, 4, 9– 10). Indeed, Ruth “came in stealth – ba-lāt” (Ruth 3:7) alluding to the ancestor, Lot (Alshekh 3:14, on 3:7). 7. Naomi as Grandmother. Naomi’s character transformation culminates with the birth of her grandson, described by the women as her “re- Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 766 deemer,” inheriting the family land and thus restoring her deceased son’s memory (Ibn Ezra 4:14); since he is born to her beloved Ruth, he will love her like a son and “revive her soul” from suffering (Qara nusahø bet 4:15; de Uҫeda 4:15, citing R. Ah aron). Fittingly, the women declare, “A son is born to Naomi” (Ruth 4:17) (Qara nusahø bet 4:17; Ibn Ezra 4:17). Samuel de Uҫeda (4:14) suggests that this grandchild is born with Mahlon’s soul. Naomi instills her love in him as a dear son, being constantly with him, not only after he is satiated with food (Ibn Yah ya 4:16), and training him in the way of Torah (de Uҫeda 4:16). Based on the midrash that Boaz died the night he married Ruth (RutZ 4:13), Avigdor Kohen Tsedeq (4:17) surmises that Naomi raises him like her own son. Thus, the women insist that Naomi name the child (Sforno 4:17). Naomi defers to Ruth, but Ruth hesitates since her son is linked with Naomi (Elisha Galiqo 4:17). Ultimately, the women call him Oved, signifying that he will serve Naomi and sustain her in her old age (Qara nusahø alef, nusahø bet 4:17). Or, Oved implies he will serve God, and as such, be like a son to Naomi, whose name denotes her righteous, pleasant actions (de Uҫeda 4:17). Eleazar of Worms portrays Naomi as the allegorical symbol for the nation of Israel. Naomi’s widowed, impoverished state hints to the desolation of the land of Israel when its people is in exile (commentary to 1:5, 11, 19, 21; 4:3). Naomi’s return to her land signifies the nation’s eventual return from exile, contingent on its repentance (commentary to 1:6; 2:6; 4:13). Naomi also symbolically represents the pleasant path of Torah (commentary to 3:1). Ruth’s destiny and that of her child, shaped by Naomi, allegorically signify the righteous Jews who will bring about Israel’s redemption through the messiah (commentary to 1:14; 2:2, 8, 12; 3:9–10; 4:14–15). Bibliography. Primary: ■ Alqabets, S., Shoresh Yishai (Kiryat Bobov 1980 [Venice 1561]). ■ Alshekh, M., Sefer Einei Mosheh: Beiur Megillat Rut (Jerusalem 1990 [Venice 1601]). ■ Alshekh, M., The Book of Ruth, A Harvest of Majesty: The Commentary of Rabbi Moshe Alshich on Megillath Ruth (trans. R. Shahar/L. Oschry; New York 1991). ■ Eleazar of Worms, Perush ha-Roqeahø al H ø amesh Megillot (ed. C. Konyevsky; Bnei Berak 1985 [Lublin 1608]). ■ Ibn Kaspi, “Kappot kesef: beur liMegillat Rut u-veur li-Megillat Ekhah,” in id., Aśarah kelei kesef (ed. I. Last; Pressburg 1903; repr. Jerusalem 1970). ■ Ibn Yah  ya, J. b. D., in Miqraot Gedolot Orim Gedolim Im Otsar Perushim Qadmonim Nedirim – Megillat Rut (ed. Y. Widov■ Miqraot Gedolot Haketer, The Five sqi; Jerusalem 2004). Scrolls (ed. M. Cohen; Ramat Gan 2012). ■ Saba, A., Eshkol ha-kofer al Megillat Rut (Bartfeld 1907). ■ Sforno, O., Perush Rabbeinu Ovadyah Seforno ha-mevoar: Shir ha-shirim, Rut (ed. ø amesh meM. Kravitz; Bet Shemesh 2015). ■ Torat hø ayyim H gillot (ed. M. Katznellenbogen; Jerusalem 2011). ■ Uҫeda, S. de, Iggeret Shemuel al Megillat Rut (Kuruçeşme 1597; Munkács 1894). Secondary: ■ Beattie, D. R. G., Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (JSOTS 2; Sheffield 1977). ■ Walfish, Barry. “An An- 767 Naomi notated Bibliography of Medieval Jewish Commentaries on the Book of Ruth in Print and in Manuscript,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume, vol. 1 (ed. id.; Haifa 1993) 251– 71. ■ Ziegler, Y., Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy (Jerusalem 2015). Michelle J. Levine D. Modern Judaism Scholars of modern Judaism, feminist commentators, and literary writers see in Naomi’s character the full spectrum of women’s experiences and human experience. Naomi is a forceful presence. She dominates the narrative. She engages with Ruth, giving her specific advice which, once back in Bethlehem, initially connects Ruth with Boaz. Subsequently she instructs Ruth how to interact with Boaz on the threshing floor, thereby bringing about the desired resolution. In The JPS Torah Commentary on Ruth, Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky refer to a wide variety of sources about Naomi in the section titled “Contemporary Readings” which include as subsets “Feminist Interpretations, Modern Jewish Interpretations, [and] Other Contemporary Interpretations” (lxiv–lxx). How Naomi is regarded among feminist thinkers depends on a variety of factors such as each author’s ideological, cultural, or social viewpoint. Some interpreters regard Naomi positively, others less so. A fairly one-sided character, suggests Amy-Jill Levine, “Naomi describes her own worth as reproductive only.” She “continues to believe that a woman’s happiness and fulfillment require men, that is, a husband and sons.” Her self-image is flawed. “Naomi had not left Bethlehem ‘full’ as she claims (1:21), since she left for Moab during a famine. Nor has she returned empty … [for patently] Ruth is by her side” (80, 78, 80). Naomi could be described as caring and gracious, or as interfering and manipulative (ch. 3). Noting parallels with the Judah and Tamar story (Gen 38), Levine points out that “Judah at least eventually recognized the righteousness of his daughter-in-law, but Naomi never explicitly comes to this realization: she offers no final words to or about Ruth” (83–84). Erika Dreifus initially sees Naomi sympathetically through Ruth’s eyes, but ultimately as the woman who puts her claim on Ruth’s son. More affirmatively, Lois C. Dubin sees Naomi as a universal symbol. “Naomi is Everywoman. Everywoman who struggles with the problems of life and death … who worries about fertility and its loss or absence.” She also suggests that “Naomi is a survivor. She manages because she has to.” In addition, “Naomi is a female Job” (131, 132; see also Zakovitch: 9, 30–31). Ora Dresner analyzes Naomi from a psychological perspective, through the prism of mourning and loss. Avivah Zornberg likewise writes of the Naomi-Job connections, citing a comment by the medieval exegete, Abraham ibn Ezra (69–70). Rebecca Alpert posits that reading Ruth as a “Jewish Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 768 lesbian midrash … [one can] imagine Ruth and Naomi to be lovers … The fact that Ruth was married does not detract from the plausibility of this suggestion” (95). Athalya Brenner suggests that in the book of Ruth, two separate strands dealing with the reversal of fortune were combined, one of Naomi and one of Ruth, the Naomi section being closer to previous tropes such as the matriarchs, Samson’s mother, and Hannah, all childless women who have offspring (392–95). (DJZ) Modern Israeli religious feminists have adopted the midrashic genre to expand the biblical stories in which women feature. Sari Elgad notices the use of paqad in Ruth 1:6 and compares it with the use of the same word with regard to Sarah’s pregnancy (Gen 21:1). “Just as bread restores the soul, so does pregnancy” (Elgad: 107). She envisions Sarah appearing to Naomi, encouraging her to return home as she too will be visited with a son in her old age (Ruth 4:16–17). Commenting on Ruth 3:3–4, she compares Naomi instructing Ruth on how to behave on the threshing floor with Rachel giving instructions to her sister Leah on her wedding night by giving her the special signs (ibid.; cf. bBB 123a). According to Yael Unterman, when Naomi told her daughters-in-law to return home (1:8), they protested. They both wanted to stay with her, but Naomi quoted Gen 2:24 to them, explaining that since their husbands were no longer alive, they had no obligation to stay. Orpah accepted this “ruling” and returned, while Ruth understood the marital relations in the verse in an expanded sense, to include in-laws as well, and therefore decided to cleave to Naomi (Unterman: 117). Naomi has also inspired two musical compositions by Jewish composers. Naomi and Ruth is a nonliturgical cantata based on Ruth ch. 1, written in 1947 by the Italian-Jewish composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco. Ruth and Naomi are the subjects of an opera by Harriet Katz, in which a contemporary widow named Naomi and her widowed daughterin-law Ruth who live in New York travel back in time to ancient Bethlehem and live out the story of the book of Ruth. After Naomi dies, Ruth finds herself back in her New York apartment with the memorial lamp for her dead husband Mel still burning (Katz). (BDW) Bibliography: ■ Alpert, R., “Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (ed. J. A. Kates/G. T. Reimer; New York 1994) 91–96. ■ Brenner, A., “Naomi and Ruth,” VT 33.4 (1983) 385–97. ■ Castelnuovo-Tedesco, M., Naomi & Ruth: “The Book of Ruth” (chapter one): A Small Cantata for Solo Soprano and Chorus of Women’s Voices (S.S.A.) with Piano or Organ Accompaniment, Opus 137 (New York 1950). ■ Dreifus, E., “The Story of Ruth, In Three Poems,” The Tablet ■ Dresner, O., (June 9, 2016; www.tabletmag.com). “Mourning and Loss and the Life Cycle in the Book of Ruth,” EurJud 40.2 (2007) 132–39. ■ Dubin, L. C., “Fullness and Emptiness: Meditations on Naomi’s Tale in the Book of Ruth,” in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred 769 Naomi Story (ed. J. A. Kates/G. T. Reimer; New York 1994) 131–44. ■ Elgad, S., “Midreshei Naomi” [Midrashim of Naomi], in Dirshuni: Israeli Women Writing Midrash (ed. N. Weingarten■ Eskenazi, Mintz/T. Biala; Tel Aviv 2009) 107. [Heb.] T. C./T. Frymer-Kensky, Ruth (JPS Bible Commentary Series; Philadelphia, PA 2011). ■ Katz, H., Ruth and Naomi: An Opera in Two Acts (2011; harrietkatzmusic.com). ■ Levine, A.J., “Ruth,” The Women’s Bible Commentary (ed. C. A. Newsom/ S. H. Ringe; Louisville, KY 11992) 78–84. ■ Unterman, Y., “Rut she-dareshah” [Ruth who interpreted], in Dirshuni: Israeli Women Writing Midrash 2 (ed. T. Biala; Rishon le-Tsiyon ■ Zakovitch, Y., Ruth: Introduction and 2018) 117. [Heb.] Commentary (Miqra le-Yiśrael; Tel Aviv/ Jerusalem 1990). ■ Zornberg, A., “The Concealed Alternative,” in [Heb.] Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (ed. J. A. Kates/G. T. Reimer; New York 1994) 65–81. Barry Dov Walfish and David J. Zucker III. Christianity Naomi’s story begins and ends the book we know as Ruth’s, yet surprisingly little has been written about her in Christian history. Unsurprisingly, most commentary focuses on Ruth and Boaz, the romantic (or at least practical) protagonists, and Naomi is left as a supporting character, an afterthought. The rhetorical strategies of the writer – contrasts between fullness and emptiness, sweetness and bitterness, and Naomi’s own self-deprecation – accidentally and somehow fittingly lead the reader to forgetting her role at the center of the drama. Typically, Naomi is understood as Matthew Henry described her in the 18th century in his Complete Bible Commentary: “distressed housekeeper,” “mournful widow and mother,” “careful mother-inlaw,” and “poor woman.” She is just as often understood as sinful, as she herself states, because she chose to dwell “among idolaters, had become cold to the true zeal of God, having more respect for the comfort of the body than the comfort of the soul” (Geneva Bible: nn. 1:9). As noted by Geneva Bible commentators and others, her name meaning “amiable” or “pleasant” is in stark contrast to her son’s names, suggesting their weakness and illness. “Behold they wither presently,” Henry wrote, depicting the demise of the children in the flowery language of death familiar to his 18th century readers: “green and growing up in the morning, cut down and dried up before night, buried soon after they were married, for neither of them left any children.” The implicit critique is severe, suggesting Naomi is responsible for the deaths of her husband and two sons and the precarious space in which she and her daughters-in-law then found themselves. Her choice to move to Moab was narratively necessary for the birth of Obed and eventually of Jesus; even so, she was deemed sinful for walking away from the promised land. The medieval period also saw this and much of the Hebrew scriptures as not only foreshadowing of the coming of Christ, but allegories for moments in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 770 his life and the faithful response of believers (for details see Barr). Thus, Naomi’s sojourn in Moab is a metaphor for humans overstaying this earthly life, with an individual’s death and the kingdom of heaven the parallel to her return to Israel, and Ruth’s time with Boaz on the threshing-floor a direct command for Christians similarly to lay themselves at the feet of Christ. While God is very present in this story, Naomi’s and Ruth’s agency is at the forefront. Naomi misinterprets her own pain when they arrive in Bethlehem, attributing fullness and safety only to the presence of men, saying she is empty and alone when she is in fact full and cared for by Ruth. It’s a tenuous existence, to be sure, yet this story does not rely on a man rushing in to save them nor even on God making them promises. To the contrary, these women save themselves. As Trible (262) says, Boaz “has patriarchal power, but he does not have narrative power.” Medieval preachers might have agreed with this statement, focused as they were on encouraging all the people to pious acts and right doctrine, rather than the specifics of scripture, and intent as they were on including women in their sermons and “authorizing [them] as independent agents” (Barr: 299). Notably, commentators of different eras name Naomi as the mover and shaker in this story as well as the recipient of redemption. It is she who moves with her husband to Moab and then chooses to return. It is she who encourages her daughters-in-law to make a thoughtful choice about going back to their homes rather than following her. It is she who instigates Ruth’s actions at the threshing-floor (though Ruth takes it a step further). It is she who is restored in the sight of the people and in her own soul by the birth of Obed. Ruth, fascinating as she is, is the instrument of Naomi’s transformation; the hø esed (loyalty, loving-kindness) Ruth enacts in her vow and in her work to care for Naomi is beyond what Naomi expects even from God. But even with this focus on the women’s agency, Christian interpreters are clear that the story is about grace, whether articulated as chance or God’s action, as the foundation. Some 20th- and 21st-century scholars have remarked upon the romantic nature of Ruth’s commitment to Naomi, some going so far as to say they were lovers and partners, others holding them up as examples of the multifaceted love between women (Presser and Emmerson, among others). While it is unlikely that Ruth and Naomi were romantic partners, if only because the beautiful words of commitment in the first chapter are one-sided, their relationship can easily and rightly be held in the hearts of LGBTQ people as an example of the life-giving, mutually-supportive love they share. H ø esed is not exclusive to relationships with God nor to heterosexual relationships. 771 Naomi Many modern Christian commentators, typically though not exclusively evangelical, speak of Naomi’s role in simple terms like “Care for your inlaws” or “Don’t be bitter.” This reading is not only shallow but also oppressive, for it fails to take into account Naomi’s whole person and puts her and the reader squarely in a scenario where keeping someone happy is prioritized over naming deep sorrow, examining where God is active, and taking initiative to alleviate suffering. Alternative commentaries (e.g., Fischer) affirm, by contrast, that scripture speaks of what exists so that God’s challenging activity can be discerned, not in order to affirm vague platitudes and conventional norms. Liberatory commentaries assert, for example, that Christians are certainly called to embody Ruth’s hø esed, but are also invited to explore how they might be like Naomi – she who feels emptiness and anger, who takes initiative, perhaps makes mistakes, cares for her family, experiences despair and is given hope. According to this approach, Naomi is meant to be the character readers identify with, for it is she who is in need of redemption. Bibliography: ■ Barr, B. A., “‘He Is Bothyn Modyr, Broyϸ Yr, & Syster Vn-to Me’: Women and the Bible in Late Medieval and Early Modern English Sermons,” CHRC 94.3 (2014) 297–315. [Available at www.jstor.org/stable/23923180] ■ Bolinger, H., “3 Encouraging Truths from Naomi’s Life in the Bible,” Crosswalk.com (March 6, 2020; www.cross walk.com). ■ Emmerson, G. I., “Ruth,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. J. Barton/J. Muddiman; Oxford 2001) 192– 95. ■ Farmer, K. A. R., “Ruth,” in The New Interpreters’ Bible, ■ Fischer, I., Rut vol. 2 (Nashville, TN 1998) 891–946. (HThKAT; Freiburg i.Br. 2001) ■ Henry, M., “Ruth,” in Commentary on the Whole Bible (Christian Classics Etherial Library; 1708). [Available at www.ccel.org] ■ Laffey, A. L., “Ruth,” in The New Jerome Bible Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1990) 553–57. ■ Presser, R., “Things I Learned from the Book of Ruth: Diasporic Reading of Queer Conversions,” in De/Constituting Wholes: Towards Partiality Without Parts (ed. C. F. E. Holzhey/M. Gragnolati; Cultural Inquiry 11; Vienna 2017) 47–65. ■ The Geneva Bible: 1560 Edition (Peabody, MA 2007). [Esp. “Notes on Ruth”] ■ Trible, P., “Two Women in a Man’s World: A Reading of the Book of Ruth,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 59.3 (1976) 251– 79. [Available at www.jstor.org/stable/41177998] Alice Connor IV. Literature Despite her prominence in the biblical narrative, Naomi’s presence in literary reception is perhaps most marked by her absence: two of the most famous allusions to Ruth (Victor Hugo’s “Boaz Asleep” and John Keats’ “Ode to a Nightingale”) do not mention Naomi at all, and only Ruth is present in Dante Alighieri’s Paradiso. Rare is the retelling that centers Ruth’s mother-in-law; Naomi is instead primarily evoked in relation to various Ruth-figures, often without being named herself. Naomi does appear in Spanish playwright Tirso de Molina’s 1634 La mejor espigadera (The Best Gleaner) and Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 772 in the Comtesse de Genlis’s 18th-century educational play Ruth and Naomi. Both depict Naomi as an active character and as a generous, devoted maternal figure: Tirso’s play includes lengthy scenes descriptive of Naomi and Ruth’s life in Moab, where Naomi is praised by many for her virtuous generosity in feeding the poor; Ruth later refers to her as “madre de obras, aunque suegra [mother indeed, although mother-in-law]” (Molina: 891). Though the Comtesse de Genlis’s Ruth and Naomi centers around the romance between Ruth and Boaz, it is Naomi herself who speaks to Boaz and arranges the marriage. Eve Walsh Stoddard argues that Ruth’s pastoral setting made the book an appropriate intertext for 19th-century novelists. In George Eliot’s Silas Marner, Silas himself might represent a kind of Naomifigure, restored as he is by his relationship to the Ruth-like Eppie (see Fisch) and in Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles, as Stoddard writes, “Tess’s mother, like Naomi, leads her to an alien ‘land’ in search of protection and perhaps marriage” (231). Twentieth-century novel reworkings also center around the close relationship between Naomi and Ruth evoked in Ruth 1, sometimes for lesbian narratives. In Helen Anderson’s pulp novel Pity for Women, Ruth’s oath to Naomi is evoked in Ann’s dedication to the older woman Judith (“Entreat me not to leave thee … she whispered”) and is quoted more formally as a wedding oath between the two at the novel’s conclusion (Anderson: 256). The love between Ruth and Naomi is also referenced in Isabel Miller’s 1969 Patience and Sarah, based on the life of two 19th-century women. Patience paints an image of Ruth and Naomi and Boaz entitled “Where Thou Lodgest, I Will Lodge” for her home with Sarah, though she notes “Even its basis in Scripture could not make the embrace of Ruth and Naomi spiritual enough for guests to see” (Miller: 212). Naomi and Ruth’s love is also an intertext in the romantic relationship between Ruth and Idgie in Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. Other novels draw on Ruth and Naomi’s story to emphasize the intensity of a mother and daughter pairing, as well as to highlight themes of belonging and physical and familial border-crossing. Laurel Bollinger reads Jeanette’s foster mother as a Naomifigure in the “Ruth” chapter of Jeanette Winterson’s Oranges are Not the Only Fruit, and Cheryl Stobie reads Agaat and Milla as a modern South-African Ruth and Naomi in Marlene van Niekerk’s Agaat. In Ngũgı̃ wa Thiong’o’s biblically infused A Grain of Wheat, a character elsewhere linked to Ruth draws on Ruth 1 to describe her close relationship with her mother-in-law Wangari in the absence of men: “But my mother-in-law refused to go and I could not leave her alone”; “In those years of waiting, we came closer together, not just a mother and a daughter-in-law, but as something else, I cannot de- 773 Naomi scribe” (139; 145). Naomi and Ruth are also treated in popular fiction, as in Walter Wangerin’s Naomi and Her Daughters (2010) and Tommy Tenney’s The Road Home (2007). In 20th-century poetry, Naomi does on occasion appear as a central figure. In French-German poet Yvan Goll’s “Noemi,” Naomi is the poem’s speaker, a transhistorical, archetypal voice of Jewish female persistence; Naomi is also the speaker in Israeli poet Abraham Huss’s “Naomi,” which concludes with reference to the future Davidic kingdom. Naomi is apostrophized both in Marge Piercy’s “The Book of Ruth and Naomi,” a poem reflecting on women’s recollections of Ruth and its emphasis on all kinds of female love (“show me a woman who does not dream a double, heart’s twin, a sister / of the mind”) (Curzon: 325) and in Polish poet Anna Kamienska’s “Naomi.” Kamienska’s poem offers an unusual reading that highlights Naomi’s tragedy: the speaker poignantly evokes Naomi’s losses, the possibility she dreamt of gaining a son through Boaz herself, and the imperfect, indirect nature of the child she gleans through Ruth. Maureen Duffy’s “Mother and the Girl” describes Ruth’s romantic love for Naomi, and in Grace Goldin’s 1958 verse midrash on Ruth, Come Under the Wings, Naomi links Ruth’s oath to Jewish conversion. Bibliography: ■ Anderson, H., Pity for Women (Garden City, NY 1937). ■ Curzon, D., Modern Poems on the Bible (Philadelphia, PA 1994). ■ Exum, C., “Is This Naomi? The NaomiRuth-Boaz Triangle,” in Plotted, Shot and Painted (London 1996) 129–74. ■ Fisch, H., “Natural Piety in Silas Marner,” in id., New Stories for Old: Biblical Patterns in the Novel (CCRC; New York 1998) 58–77. ■ Goll, Y., Noemi (Berlin 1929): Great Women of the Bible in Art and Literature (ed. E. Bührer; Grand Rapids, MI 1994). ■ Miller, I., Patience and Sarah (New York 1972). ■ Molina, T. de (Fray Gabriel Tellez), “La mejor espigadera” [The Best Gleaner], in Obras dramáticas completas, vol. 1 (ed. B. de Los Ríos; Madrid 1946) 839–95. ■ Ngũgı̃ wa Thiong’o, A Grain of Wheat (New York 2012 [London 11967]). ■ Shak  ed, M., Le-netsahø Anagnekh: ha-Mikø ra ba-shirah ha-Ivrit ha-hø adashah [I’ll Play You Forever: Bible in Modern Hebrew Poetry] (Tel Aviv 2005). [Heb.] ■ Stobie, C., “Ruth in Marlene van Niekerk’s Agaat,” Journal of Literary Studies 25.3 (2009) 57–71. ■ Stoddard, E. W., “The Genealogy of Ruth: From Harvester to Fallen Woman in Nineteenth-Century England,” in Old Testament Women in Western Literature (ed. R. J. Frontain/J. Wojcik; Conway, AR 1991) 205–36. Chloe Blackshear V. Visual Arts In depictions in the visual arts, Naomi is often paired with one or both of her daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah (see fig. 20). When all three appear, the emotional motives include distress and longing as Orpah listens to Naomi and stays in Moab while Naomi and Ruth move to Bethlehem. When only Naomi and Ruth are present, the emotional motives include loyalty and interdependence. Additionally, Naomi’s age is sometimes contrasted with Ruth’s youth, a common trope with origins in the Renais- Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 774 Fig. 20 W. Blake, Naomi entreating Ruth and Orpah to return to the Land of Moab (1795) sance that continues through the 18th to 20th centuries. Paintings of Naomi with Ruth and Orpah include: George Dawe, Naomi and her Daughters (1804, Tate, London); Kehinde Wiley, Naomi and her Daughters (2013, private collection, New York). Images of Naomi and Ruth include: Thomas Matthew Rooke, Ruth and Naomi (1876, oil on canvas, Tate, London), Mary Ascher (1963, lithograph; Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC); Ruth Weisberg, The Story of Ruth and Naomi (1991, etching, private collection); Sandy Freckleton Gagon, Whither Thou Goest (2006, oil on canvas on panel, private collection, San Antonio, TX); Adi Nes, Untitled (Ruth and Naomi, Gleaners) (2006, photograph, Israel Museum, Jerusalem). (BS) Naomi is also depicted in four very different illustrated books of Ruth (McBee 2013). Arthur Szyk in his The Book of Ruth (1947), depicts Naomi three times, in his usual ornate, medieval-style illuminations: the first is a gruesome scene of death and destruction, as she leaves the land of Judah with her husband and two sons because of the famine in the land (Ruth 1:1). The second shows her with Ruth on her way back to the land of Judah; the departing Orpah appears in the background (Ruth 1:16–17). The final scene depicts her holding Ruth’s baby (see Ruth 4:16–17), alongside Ruth and Boaz, who embrace affectionately. Jacob Steinhardt illustrated the book of Ruth with nine woodcuts, attempting to portray the scenes with biblical authenticity (calligraphy by Franzisca Baruch; 1957, Philadelphia, PA). In the first, Naomi is shown with her husband and two sons solemnly leaving for Moab through the gate of Bethlehem. Another shows Naomi and Ruth embracing affectionately. A third very contemporary take on the Ruth story is the large (2 ft high and 30 ft long) accordion book by artist David Wander (2011), which illustrates the entire story as a contemporary commentary on social injustice and inequality. Naomi is depicted throughout (McBee 775 Naomi 2013). Artist and illustrator Leonard Baskin depicted Naomi and Ruth twice, first in a 1979 bronze sculpture located in the Besthoff Sculpture Garden in New Orleans City Park, and then in his illustrations to The Five Scrolls (Baskin: 225). Also in the latter is a portrait of Naomi and her two daughters-inlaw, Ruth and Orpah, their heads stacked one on top of the other, with Naomi in the middle facing left, and Ruth and Orpah above and below her, facing right (ibid.: 221). (BDW) Bibliography: ■ Baskin, L. (ill.), The Five Scrolls (New York 1984). ■ McBee, R., “Weisberg’s Visions,” review of Ruth Weisberg Unfurled (Exhibition Catalog, Los Angeles, CA 2007; http://richardmcbee.com). ■ McBee, R., “Megillas Ruth in Jewish Art: Arthur Szyk (1947) Jacob Steinhardt (1957) David Wander (2011)” (May 10, 2013). [Available at https:// richardmcbee.com] ■ Steinhardt, J. (ill.), The Book of Ruth (Philadelphia, PA 1957). ■ Szyk, A. (ill.), The Book of Ruth (New York 1947). Ben Schachter and Barry Dov Walfish VI. Music The musical reception of Naomi is, of course, always set in the context of either the story of the book of Ruth or at least Naomi’s relationship with the characters of Ruth and Boaz. Notable among the works including Naomi is César Franck’s “oratorio biblique” of 1845, Ruth (with Liszt and Meyerbeer reportedly at the private premiere). Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco’s Naomi and Ruth (1947), a “Small Cantata for Women’s Voices from the book of Ruth,” emphasizes Naomi’s role by presenting her as the soprano soloist while Ruth’s parts are performed by the chorus. English composer Lennox Berkeley composed a well-reviewed sacred chamber opera, also entitled Ruth, in 1956 – with the role of Naomi sung by a soprano while the title role is written for mezzo-soprano. Musician and musical historian Helen Leneman analyzes the Berkeley composition and eleven other operas and oratorios of varying significance in her monograph The Performed Bible: The Story of Ruth in Opera and Oratorio. Academy Award winning film composer Franz Waxman wrote the score for the 1960 film The Story of Ruth, and based three distinct pieces on that score: A Work for Narrative Poem With Music (which includes dialogue between Naomi and Boaz), A Symphonic Suite in Three Movements, and the unfinished, though later edited, developed, and arranged (by Angela Morley) Elegy (for cello and piano). In the realm of contemporary pop music, “I’m With You (Ruth & Naomi),” a duet by Amy Grant and Nichole Nordeman (co-writer and composer of the song with Bernie Herms), expresses the profound love between the daughter and mother-inlaw with a chorus centered upon a paraphrase of the most quoted section of the book – Ruth 1:16: “Where you go, I’ll go too.” Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 776 Bibliography: ■ Davies, L., César Franck and His Circle (Boston, MA 1970). ■ Leneman, H., The Performed Bible: The Story of Ruth in Opera and Oratorio (Sheffield 2007). ■ Leonard, J., review of Lennox Berkeley: Ruth, in AllMusic Online (May 24, 2005; www.allmusic.com). ■ Levin, N. W., review of Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco: Naomi & Ruth, in Milken Archive of Jewish Music (2004; www.milkenarchive.org). ■ “Music For Performance: Ruth [1960],” FranzWaxman.com (www.franzwax ■ Vallas, L., César man.com/music-performance/ruth/). Franck (trans. H. J. Foss; New York 1951). David Wilmington VII. Film The most famous and elaborate cinematic retelling of the Ruth story is the Hollywood biblical epic The Story of Ruth (dir. Henry Koster, 1960, US), which takes considerable liberty with the biblical text and adds many elements not found there. Naomi plays an important role here as she does in the biblical narrative. The first half of the film fills in the backstory of the sojourn of Naomi and her family in Moab. An early scene shows the home of the artisan Elimelech, his wife Naomi, their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, and Orpah, Chilion’s wife. The family seems well established in Moab, making a living as artisans, probably in the tenth year of their sojourn there. Naomi comes across as a strong-willed, determined but world-weary woman who is able to stand up for herself and her family. When her son Mahlon confronts a priestess of the temple of Chemosh, criticizing idolatry and child sacrifice, Naomi rebukes him in front of the others but privately praises him when they have left the room. She takes the deaths of her husband and son Chilion in stride, showing great internal fortitude. She is comforted by her daughter-in-law Orpah who shows her great affection and also by Ruth, whose love for Mahlon she recognizes and appreciates. When Mahlon, too, succumbs to his wounds and perishes, she resolves to return to Bethlehem. She persuades Orpah to return to her family, arguing that she is still young and attractive and will still be able to find a husband. She also mentions the advantage of being close to her family, a point not made in the biblical story (Ruth 1:8–13). When Ruth insists on accompanying her on her return journey to Bethlehem, she agrees, and they set out together, managing to avoid a posse of Moabite soldiers sent to find them. After crossing the Jordan they encounter a camp of Judeans, which was apparently raided by Moabites and whose sheep have all died. When a Moabite is captured and interrogated, the owner of the flock (who later turns out to have been Boaz) murders the Moabite by making him drink from the contaminated pool that killed his sheep. Naomi comments to Ruth that this was a poor welcome for Ruth, a hint at the hostility that will confront her in Bethlehem. Naomi returns to her abandoned home and must face the daunting task of repairing it and mak- 777 Naphish ing it livable. She is grateful for Ruth’s support and supports her in turn in her unpleasant encounters with hostile townspeople. When Ruth, who was harshly spoken to by Boaz in his field, refuses Boaz’s offer of provisions, Naomi supports her, even though they desperately needed them. Naomi shows good judgment in her evaluation of Tob (not mentioned by name in the Bible) and Boaz’s behavior, calling the one too hot, the other too cold. When Tob’s intention to marry Ruth becomes clear, she plots with Ruth to undermine Tob and enable her to secure the affections of Boaz and facilitate their marriage. After Ruth is accused of idolatry and must stand trial, Naomi offers a heartfelt prayer to God, complaining that she is world-weary and has suffered too much, and she prays that Ruth’s suffering will soon be over. Then follows one of the strangest scenes in the film. Naomi hears a series of shofar blasts and goes outside to find an enigmatic stranger by the well, who turns out to be a holy man and a prophet, named Jehoam. This prophet announces to a stunned Naomi that there will soon be water, ending the drought, and that “from her son’s widow will issue children and children’s children, numbering among them a king and a royal house and a prophet whom many will worship as the Messiah.” He asks for bread, and Naomi runs in to get him some, but when she returns he is gone and the rains have started. This scene is an indication that The Story of Ruth is really an “Old Testament” film, in that the portrayal of the biblical story reflects the Christian belief that many events and prophecies in the Old Testament point to the coming of Christ (see “Old Testament X. Film”). At Ruth’s trial two Moabites posing as Israelites from the North turn up to attest to Ruth’s having served as a priestess in the temple of Chemosh, which she does not deny. Naomi, suspecting foul play, interrogates the witnesses, asking them to name all the tribes of Israel. When they stumble, Ruth then intervenes, asking them if they know the ninth commandment, “Do not bear false witness” (Exod 20:16), which they do not. Their deceit is revealed and Ruth is vindicated. When Tob reveals to Naomi his intention to marry Ruth, she insists that it is up to Ruth to decide. When he reminds her of the levirate law, which determines that he is the first in line to marry her, she returns to Ruth and hatches a plan for Ruth to win Boaz’s affection and foil Tob’s plan. In the end Ruth’s declaration of having visited Boaz on the threshing floor convinces Tob that she is not virtuous, and Boaz immediately steps in and offers to marry her. Naomi looks on with satisfaction. At the wedding celebration, the holy man Jehoam appears again, and he and Naomi exchange knowing looks, the implication being that he had helped ar- Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 20 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2022 778 range the happy outcome and that the moment is pregnant with meaning and great import. Interestingly, Naomi’s happiest moment in the biblical story, the birth of Ruth’s firstborn, Obed, and Naomi taking the child and becoming its foster mother (Ruth 4:16–17), is not shown in the film, which seems to be more focussed on the significance of the birth for the future Davidic monarchy (and, by implication, the eventual birth of Jesus). Amos Gitai’s Golem, l’esprit de l’exil (1992, DE/FR/ NL/IT/UK), is part of a trilogy based on biblical texts exploring themes of exile, this one based on the story of Ruth. This impressionistic film, which takes place in present-day Paris, focuses on the emotions of grief and love shared by Ruth and Naomi. The short Christian film The Book of Ruth: Journey of Faith (dir. Stephen Patrick Walker, 2009, US) is basically a cinematic verse-by-verse reading of the book of Ruth, which does not allow for much character development beyond the original biblical text. The direct speech of the characters is supplied by an external voiceover. Naomi is portrayed as a woman in her early forties, grief-stricken but still vigorous and determined. Bibliography: ■ Babington, B./P. W. Evans, Biblical Epics: Sacred Narrative in the Hollywood Cinema (Eugen, OR 1993). [Esp. 48–50] ■ Page, M., “The Story of Ruth: Review,” Bible Films Blog (January 17, 2007; www.biblefilms.blogspot.com). Barry Dov Walfish See also / Boaz, Booz; / Chilion; / Elimelech; / Mahlon; / Mara; / Orpah; / Ruth (Book and Person); / Tob Naphish Naphish (MT nāpı̄š, LXX Ναφες and in Chr Ναφισαίoi, Vg. Naphis and Naphisei; in the Vulgate of 1 Esdr 5:31, fili Nafisim renders Hebrew beˇnê Neˇpūsı̄m) is the eleventh son of Ishmael Gen 25:15; 1 Chr 1:31. In 1 Chr 5:19, Israelites settling in Transjordan are involved in a war with Naphish, his brother Jetur, and Nodab. In an Assyrian letter to Ashurbanipal from Lebanon, a leader of the tribe appears in alliance with (a portion of?) the tribe of Massa among the enemies (K 5580 = CT 53,289 Rv 8f). After Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Duma, Massa, and Tema, Naphish is the seventh Ishmaelite tribe to be mentioned by the Assyrians. Always preceded by Jetur in the biblical references, his role in 1 Chr 5:18– 22 may reflect a conflict between these tribes and Jewish settlers in the Golan in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. It is safe to assume that the remnants of Naphish were absorbed by the Itureans. Bibliography: ■ Knauf, E. A., Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im l. Jahrtausend v. Chr (ADPV; Wiesbaden 21989). [Esp. 80–81, 152] ■ Knauf, E. A., “The Itureans: Another Bedouin State,” in Baalbek: Image and Monument. 1898–1998 (ed. A. Neuwirth et al.; BTS[W] 69; Bei-