The Defamation of Orpah

Translation of biblical verses is from NRSV with adjustments.

The verses read:

^{רות א:יא} וַתֹּ֤אמֶר נָעֳמִי֙ שֹׁ֣בְנָה בְנֹתַ֔י לָ֥מָּה תֵלַ֖כְנָה עִמִּ֑י הַֽעֽוֹד־לִ֤י בָנִים֙ בְּֽמֵעַ֔י וְהָי֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם לַאֲנָשִֽׁים׃ ^א:יב שֹׁ֤בְנָה בְנֹתַי֙ לֵ֔כְןָ כִּ֥י זָקַ֖נְתִּי מִהְי֣וֹת לְאִ֑ישׁ כִּ֤י אָמַ֙רְתִּי֙ יֶשׁ־לִ֣י תִקְוָ֔ה גַּ֣ם הָיִ֤יתִי הַלַּ֙יְלָה֙ לְאִ֔ישׁ וְגַ֖ם יָלַ֥דְתִּי בָנִֽים׃ ^א:יג הֲלָהֵ֣ן׀ תְּשַׂבֵּ֗רְנָה עַ֚ד אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִגְדָּ֔לוּ הֲלָהֵן֙ תֵּֽעָגֵ֔נָה לְבִלְתִּ֖י הֱי֣וֹת לְאִ֑ישׁ אַ֣ל בְּנֹתַ֗י כִּֽי־מַר־לִ֤י מְאֹד֙ מִכֶּ֔ם כִּֽי־יָצְאָ֥ה בִ֖י יַד־יְ־הוָֽה׃

^{Ruth 1:11} But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? ^1:12 Turn back, my daughters, go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I should have a husband tonight and bear sons, ^1:13 would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, it has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of YHWH has turned against me.”

^{רות א:טז} וַתֹּ֤אמֶר רוּת֙ אַל־תִּפְגְּעִי־בִ֔י לְעָזְבֵ֖ךְ לָשׁ֣וּב מֵאַחֲרָ֑יִךְ כִּ֠י אֶל־אֲשֶׁ֙ר תֵּלְכִ֜י אֵלֵ֗ךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁ֤ר תָּלִ֙ינִי֙ אָלִ֔ין עַמֵּ֣ךְ עַמִּ֔י וֵאלֹהַ֖יִךְ אֱלֹהָֽי׃ ^א:יז ‎בַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר תָּמ֙וּתִי֙ אָמ֔וּת וְשָׁ֖ם אֶקָּבֵ֑ר כֹּה֩ יַעֲשֶׂ֙ה יְ־הוָ֥ה לִי֙ וְכֹ֣ה יֹסִ֔יף כִּ֣י הַמָּ֔וֶת יַפְרִ֖יד בֵּינִ֥י וּבֵינֵֽךְ׃

^{Ruth 1:16} But Ruth said, “Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. ^1:17 Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may YHWH do to me if anything but death parts me from you.”

For a summary of modern Israeli biblical critics’ generally positive views on Orpah, see Talia Horovitz, “דמותה של ערפה בראי בין תחומי (מקרא, מדרש וספרות עברית)” [Orpah’s Image from a Multidisciplinary Perspective (Bible, Midrash, and Hebrew Literature)], Moʿed 13 (2003) 38-45.

This refers to the ritual in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, when the elders of a city break the neck of a calf as part of a confession of innocence when the body of a murdered person is found near the city and no one knows who is responsible.

The author of this anonymous work is generally referred to as Pseudo-Philo, since early scholars mistakenly believed it was written by Philo.

For a discussion of David’s Moabite ancestry, see Yael Avrahami, “Recasting David’s Foreign Origins,” TheTorah (2016).

Daniel J. Harrington (trans.), Pseudo-Philo: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 374.

Also, the opening letters heh and ayin, are both gutturals, and were pronounced very similarly in this period.

The accounts are as follows:

• David fights Ishbi-benob, and is almost killed, when Abishai kills the giant and saves David (vv. 16–17).
• Sibbechai kills a giant named Saph (v. 18).
• Elchanan of Bethlehem, whom the rabbis identify as David, kills Goliath (v. 19).
• Jonathan ben Shima kills a six fingered giant named Madon (vv. 20­–21).

The account ends with:

^{שמואל ב כא:כב} ‎אֶת־אַרְבַּ֥עַת אֵ֛לֶּה יֻלְּד֥וּ לְהָרָפָ֖ה בְּגַ֑ת וַיִּפְּל֥וּ בְיַד־דָּוִ֖ד וּבְיַ֥ד עֲבָדָֽיו׃

^{2 Sam 21:22} These four were descended from Harafah in Gath; they fell by the hands of David and his servants.

Quoting this, the Talmud (b. Sotah 42b) comments:

מאי נינהו? אמר רב חסדא: סף ומדון גלית וישבי בנוב.

And who were they? Rav Hisda said: Saph and Madon, Goliath, and Ishbi-benob.

It is possible to understand these texts as implying that these four giants descended from her and were necessarily her children.

The biblical passage states:

^{שמואל ב כא:טז} ‎(וְיִשְׁבּוֹ בְּנֹ֜ב) [וְיִשְׁבִּ֙י בְּנֹ֜ב] אֲשֶׁ֣ר׀ בִּילִידֵ֣י הָרָפָ֗ה וּמִשְׁקַ֤ל קֵינוֹ֙ שְׁלֹ֤שׁ מֵאוֹת֙ מִשְׁקַ֣ל נְחֹ֔שֶׁת וְה֖וּא חָג֣וּר חֲדָשָׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֖אמֶר לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־דָּוִֽד׃ ^כא:יז‎ יַּֽעֲזָר־לוֹ֙ אֲבִישַׁ֣י בֶּן־צְרוּיָ֔ה וַיַּ֥ךְ אֶת־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֖י וַיְמִיתֵ֑הוּ...

^{2 Sam 21:16} Ishbi-benob, one of the descendants of Harafah, whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of bronze, and who was fitted out with new weapons, said he would kill David. ^21:17 But Abishai son of Zeruiah came to his aid, and attacked the Philistine and killed him….

Hayyim Nahman Bialik in his modern-day midrash, “Megillat Orpah,” the “Scroll of Orpah,” describes how Orpah became Goliath’s ancestor:

וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיַּעֲבֹר פְּלִשְׁתִּי עַלִּ שׂדֵה מוֹאָב, וְהַפְּלִשְׁתִּי אִישׁ מִדוֹת וְגֶבֶר חֲלָצַיִם, מִילִידֵי הָרָפָה, וְהוּא לָבוּשׁ מַדִּים וְתָפוּשׂ נֶשֶׁק וּכְלֵי מָוֶת מִכַּף רֶגֶל וְעַד קָדְקֹד, כֻּלוֹ בַרְזֶל וּנְחֹשֶׁת, כִּי גִבּוֹר מִלְחָמָה הוּא. וַיָּסַר הָעֲנָק אֶל בֵּית עָרְפָּה וַיָּלֶן שָׁם לָיְלָה. וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-כֹּחוֹ וְאֶת-גָּבְהוֹ וְאֶת-הֲדַר מַדָּיו וְנִשְׁקוֹ וַתִּצָּמֶד-לוֹ, וַתֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֵי מְאַהֲבָהּ הֶעָרֵל הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי גִתָּה עִירוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵלֵךְ הַכֶּלָב אַחֲרֵי אֲדוֹנָיו.

And there came a day when a Philistine passed by the country of Moab. Now the Philistine was a man of great stature and mighty in vigour, offspring of the giants of old time, and he was clothed in martial raiment and girt with weapons and instruments of death, from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head; he was all iron and brass; for he was a mighty man of war. And the giant turned aside at the house of Orpah and passed the night there. And Orpah beheld his might, his stature, the splendour of his raiment and his weapons and she joined herself to him and followed after her lover, the uncircumcised Philistine, till his city Gath, just as a dog follows its master.

Hayyim N. Bialik, Va-yehi ha-yom (Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1933); available at: https://benyehuda.org/read/2290; English: And it Came to Pass, trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1938), 13–14. Unsurprisingly, Bialik avoids the base descriptions we will see shortly, and envisions the conception of Goliath in a more elegant and logical fashion. Nevertheless, the portrayal of Orpah is not at all flattering.

The reason for this has little to do with Orpah, in this case, but is a result of the combination of two midrashic notions. First, it is a popular motif in midrash that Ruth is the daughter of Eglon (b. Nazir 23b, Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 105b, Horayot 10b.). The rabbis derive this from when Eglon stands up from his chair upon hearing that Ehud has a divine message for him.

^{שופטים ג:כ} ‎...וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵה֔וּד דְּבַר־אֱלֹהִ֥ים לִ֖י אֵלֶ֑יךָ וַיָּ֖קָם מֵעַ֥ל הַכִּסֵּֽא.

^{Judg 3:20} …Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he rose from his seat.

The rabbis state that as a reward for this sign of respect for God, Eglon merits having one of his descendants sit on the “seat of YHWH” (1 Chron 29:23). Second, the rabbis assume that Ruth and Orpah are sisters, perhaps because their husbands were brothers. Thus, if Orpah is Ruth’s sister, then inevitably she too is the daughter of Eglon. The midrash reads as follows (Ruth Rabbah 1:9):

ר' ביבי בשם ר' ראובן, רות וערפה בנותיו של עגלון היו, הה"ד דבר סתר לי אליך המלך [ויאמר הס וגו'. וכתב ואהוד בא אליו וגו' ויאמר אהוד דבר אלקים לי אליך] ויקם מעל הכסא. אמר הב"ה, אתה קמת מכסאך ופסעת שלש פסיעות בשביל כבודי, חייך שאני מעמיד ממך בן יושב על כסאי, [שנ'] וישב שלמה על כסא י"י.

R. Bibi in the name of R. Reuben: “Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon.” This is what it says (Judg 3:19) “and said, ‘I have a secret message for you, O king.’ [So the king said, ‘Silence!’… and it says (v. 20) “Ehud came to him… and said, ‘I have a message from God for you.’] So he rose from his seat.” The Holy One, blessed be He said, “You stood up from your seat and took three steps in my honor, by your life, I will raise from you a son who sits on my seat.” [As it says] (1 Chron 29:23) “And Solomon sat on the seat of the LORD.”

The root ע.ר.י/ה has a complicated semantic range. It appears in several locations with the connotation of sexual penetration, but it can also have a connotation of pouring. See Avraham Even-Shoshan, המילון החדש [The New Dictionary] (Jerusalem: Qiryat sefer, 1969), 2:1018. I have used that as a possible meaning in this essay when it seems to fit the context. Another version of this midrash, which overlaps with much of the material from the Bavli (that will be quoted shortly) appears in Ruth Rabbah 2:20:

אמר ר' יצחק, כל אותה הלילה שפירשה ערפה מחמותה נתערו בה גייס של מאה בני אדם, הדא הוא /דכתיב/ והוא מדבר עמם והנה איש הבינים בא ממערכות פלשתים, ממערות כתיב, ממאה ערלות גוים שנתערו בה כל אותו הלילה. ר' תנחומא אמר, אף כלב אחד, [דכת'] ויאמר הפלשתי [אל דוד] הכלב אנכי.

R. Isaac said: “The whole night after Orpah separated from her mother-in-law a group of 100 men poured [their seed] into her.” This is what it says (1 Sam 17:23) “As he talked with them, the intermediary, came up out of the ranks [maʿarkhot]” [this is the Masoretic reading, but what is written is] “out of the caves [meʿarot],” [Goliath came] out of one hundred penises that penetrated her that whole night. Rabbi Tanchuma said: “And one dog,” [as it says] (1 Sam 17:43) “And the Philistine said [to David]: ‘Am I a dog?!’”

This word is of uncertain origin. In the above, we follow Jastrow’s Dictionary, as a derogatory tone is implied. According to Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 725, it means “mother.” According to the ‘Arukh, the medieval dictionary of R. Nathan ben Jehiel, it means “dog,” although no explanation for this derivation is given. If dog is correct, it would be a midrash on 1 Samuel 17:43 where Goliath asks “am I a dog?” See Ruth Rabbah 2:20 (in the previous footnote), which places just such a midrash in the mouth of Rabbi Tanchuma.

For further elaboration, see Yaffa Berlovitz, “The Scroll of Orpah, What is the Scroll that is not read on the Night of Shavuot” Migdar. Berlovitz speaks of three motivations for the rabbis’ denigration of Orpah: nationalistic, psychological, and poetic.

Joseph Qara points out that her kiss of Naomi (1:14), was a נשיקה של פרישות, “kiss of separation.” Others discuss whether or not she and Ruth had converted to Judaism when they married their husbands and questioned the sincerity of Orpah’s conversion (cf. Joseph Qara to 1:15; Ralbag at 1:14 and 1:15). Isaac Arama claims that they had not converted, since had they, Naomi could not have urged them to return.

See B.D. Walfish, “Typology, Narrative, and History: Isaac ben Joseph ha-Kohen on the Book of Ruth,” in With Reverence for the Word, ed. J.D. McAuliffe et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 120.

Malka Shaked, לנצח אנגנך: המקרא בשירה העברית החדשה [I’ll Play You Forever: The Bible in Modern Hebrew Poetry] (translation mine).(Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Aharonoth, 2005), 482-483 (translation mine).

Shaked, I’ll Play You Forever, 478-479 (translation mine).

Chilion is usually identified as Orpah’s husband, as the Bible explicitly states that Mahlon was Ruth’s (Ruth 4:10).

Orpah, with a Slavic diminutive.

Itzik Manger, Medresh Itsik (ed. Chone Shmeruk; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Dept of Yiddish Literature, 1969), 115-116. There is another poem entitled “ערפה געזעגנט זיך” (Orpe gezegnt zikh) “Orpah Says Goodbye,” ibid., 123-124, in which she says farewell to Naomi and obtains her blessing (translation mine).

This piece is published here in Hebrew for the first time along with an English translation by Yehudah Mirsky. The translation first appeared in Biala’s article “It’s Okay to Leave,” My Jewish Learning, May 18, 2015. My thanks to Tamar Biala for permission to include her piece in my article.

Tamar Biala, “The Scroll of Ruth: Between Separations and Unifications” [Heb.], Kolech: Religious Women’s Forum. Biala is certainly responding to the rabbinic image of Orpah as portrayed in the sources cited above and is seeking to repair it.