“Naomi the Nurse: Obed’s Ambiguous Identity Transmission”

Abstract

Three central figures within Israelite tradition—Isaac, Moses, and Samuel—are breastfed as infants by their own mothers, an activity that scholarship argues transfers identity. The case of the baby Obed, future grandfather of King David, however, is ambiguous: Ruth 4.16 articulates that Naomi becomes Obed’s “nurse,” derived from the root אמן‎, but not specifically that she “nurses” (breastfeeds) Obed, drawing on the root ינק‎. The present essay studies cases of the root אמן‎ when paired with a reference to a child or identified figure to assess Naomi’s role vis-à-vis Obed and to imagine the locus of Obed’s identity transmission. Though the text may be intentionally ambiguous, Naomi serves as Obed’s wet nurse and purveyor of Judahite kinship and identity.

Keywords

Ruth Naomi: wet nurse nurse breastfeed Moabite Judahite Obed identity

Wet nurses, women either working for hire or as slaves who breastfed the infants of others, were common throughout the ancient world and were an integral part of ancient Mediterranean society.¹ Within the Hebrew Bible specifically, breastfeeding women in general play a significant role in transmission of identity to a child. In view of this role, it is peculiar to encounter the ambiguous case of wet-nursing lineage described in the book of Ruth. Following the deaths of all the men in the Bethlehemite Naomi’s family, deceased while sojourning in Moab to escape famine, Naomi’s Moabite daughter-in-law Ruth saves the family line: she weds and gives birth to baby Obed, who happens to be the future grandfather of David, the king of Israel. One would imagine that the identity transfer of this child would be of greatest importance given his lineage. The case of the baby Obed, however, is obscure: Ruth 4.16 articulates that Naomi becomes Obed’s ōmenet (אמנת‎), a noun with a general meaning of nurse or caregiver derived from the root אמן‎,² but not specifically that she “nurses,” in other words, breastfeeds Obed, drawing on the more specific root ינק‎, to suckle (or offer suckle):

Then Naomi took the child (ילד‎) [Obed] and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse (אמנת‎). 17 The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed; he became the father of Jesse, the father of David.³

Why this narrative is left vague is all the more confounding when we consider that identity transmission of other central figures within Israelite tradition occurs through the breastfeeding of infants by their own mothers. Both the elderly Sarah and Hannah nurse their own children, Isaac and Samuel, in Gen. 21.7–8 and 1 Sam. 1.23–24, respectively.⁴ The purpose and importance of specifying that the birth mother performs the act of breastfeeding is perhaps made most clear in the case of Moses. Through a clever turn of events, Moses’ own mother is hired to be his wet nurse, after the baby is drawn from the river by the Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2.7–9). Following a large gap in the narrative–from the time the child is weaned and enters the adoptive care of Pharaoh’s daughter to the time he has grown up–somehow Moses knows of his Israelite identity (Exod. 2.11), despite being raised in the Egyptian household of none other than the Pharaoh. This narrative jump hints that breast milk itself is a primary vehicle through which he gains his Israelite identity, despite being raised subsequently in an Egyptian household.

The arc of textual transmission and reception within ancient Judaism and Christianity also suggests that both breast milk and the bosom transfer ancestral wisdom and identity to a child. Tervanotko has noted the emphasis ancient interpreters place on the role a mother plays in the general education of a child, though she also highlights that according to Philo, for example, the role of Moses’ mother (Mos. 1.17–18) is “limited” to breastfeeding (2017: 159). Penniman (2017: 68–69) interprets this role somewhat differently: he argues that Philo articulates that Moses’ Hebrew “status” is secured precisely through being breastfed by his mother. In other words, breast milk is a vehicle of identity and education transfer; consequently, breastfeeding plays a significant role. Combining these insights of Tervanotko and Penniman, we may infer that knowledge and identity are transferred to the child through those individuals fulfilling not only the role of birth mother but also the role of wet nurse, if the latter is not the birth mother. Identity transfer of this sort occurs regardless of whether patrilineal descent is also in effect.⁵

In the cases of Isaac, Moses, and Samuel, the act of nursing is clearly articulated as breastfeeding through the use of the root ינק‎ (“to nurse”). It is curious that Naomi’s act of becoming nurse for her adoptive son Obed is not also clearly defined in the same way. Much of the scholarship regarding this point considers a distinction to be maintained between the nouns derived from these roots for literal wet nursing (מנקת‎) and that of general caregiving (אמנת‎) (Gruber, 2000: 322). For this reason, the majority view at present is that, because the noun derived for Naomi as nurse is based on the more general root אמן‎ “to act as caregiver” or “nanny,” the passage does not intend to suggest that Naomi literally functions as wet nurse, only as a caregiver (e.g., Reinhartz, 2014: 1580; Yee, 2009). According to such an interpretation, Naomi functions symbolically as nurse (e.g., LaCocque, 2004: 143). Taking a middle ground is Chapman (2012: 38), who concludes that this nursing activity of Naomi’s could be either literal or symbolic. Only McNeel (2014: 109) argues that Naomi literally nursed Obed, in part based on the fact that the action of carrying an infant, performed by Naomi, is associated with nursing, as in Isa. 46.3, 60.4, and 66.12. Possibly some of the reluctance to view Naomi as a wet nurse relates to the fact that Naomi is an older woman, but age itself certainly did not seem to preclude Sarah and Hannah from performing the task of breastfeeding. If Naomi is only symbolically a nurse, then how will readers be led to understand that Obed obtains a Judahite identity when his birth mother is Moabite? In what way, exactly, does Naomi function as “nurse”?

In what follows, this essay compares Naomi’s identification as nurse to Obed with other cases in the Hebrew Bible of the root אמן‎ paired with a reference to an infant or child receiving care. This comparison is done with a view to assessing Naomi’s role vis-à-vis Obed and to identifying the locus of Obed’s identity transmission. Passages examined are Num. 11.12; 2 Sam. 4.4; Esth. 2.7; and Isa. 60.4. How are the words paired together, and does each description make it clear whether actual wet nursing is involved? The essay also compares nursing practices as described in the ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and, to a certain extent, later literature pertaining to ancient Judaism and Christianity. This interdisciplinary approach will enable us to assess how consistently wet nursing is connected to identity formation and to evaluate Naomi’s connection as nurse. The present essay contends that, contrary to general scholarly opinion, the אמן‎ as nurse encompasses a wide range of meanings, including that of a literal wet nurse. For that reason, despite the fact that this narrative of Naomi as nurse seems purposefully ambiguous, Naomi is clearly the source of Obed’s Judahite identity transmission as wet nurse.

2 Background: Wet-nursing as Means of Identity Transfer in the Ancient Near East and Ancient Mediterranean

Let us begin by situating the Book of Ruth within a tradition of wet nursing and identity transfer in the ancient Near East and ancient Judaism. The book of Ruth appears to speak to a Judahite audience, whether that audience was within the Southern Kingdom prior to the exile, during the exile, or even to that same audience in the early period following the exile. On the early end of the spectrum, the book’s composition must fall no earlier than the late monarchy, as it contains a “denouement that traces the roots of the Davidic monarchy” (Hackett, 1998: 137). When associated with the Persian postexilic period, this later date is often offered alongside an argument that the book narrates the case of a foreign woman who becomes completely integrated within Judahite society: the book, in that case, functions as a Persian era antidote to either the conquest message of the book of Judges or the prohibition against foreign spouses in Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., Reinhartz, 2014: 1574; Hubbard, 1988: 35, n. 18, as noted in Matheny, 2020: 12). Certainly, we will observe that the tradition of wet nursing exists throughout these periods and beyond.

Within ancient Mesopotamia, texts indicate that it was customary for mothers to hire wet nurses. For example, the Hammurabi Code no. 194 legislates concerning the instance in which a hired wet nurse takes on a wet nursing contract for an additional child, without informing the first set of parents:

If a man gives his son to a wet nurse (museniqtim) and that child then dies while in the care of the wet nurse, and the wet nurse then contracts for another child without the knowledge of his father and mother, they shall charge and convict her, and, because she contracted for another child without the consent of his father and mother, they shall cut off her breast.⁶

In Roman tradition, it was customary to hire a wet nurse for both the upper and lower classes for reasons not only of “snobbishness,” per Gardner (1986: 242), but also other issues such as illness of the mother causing an inability to produce milk.⁷ Flynn (2018: 57–110) makes the argument, however, that in the case of ancient Mesopotamia, the reason was not fashion or custom. Instead, Flynn argues that the reason would have been for the sake of increasing one’s own ability to birth more children. As the act of breastfeeding reduces ovulation, it would be more difficult for a woman to become pregnant again quickly. In a time of high infant mortality, having multiple babies increased the chances that some of them would survive to adulthood, to assist with family duties and care for their elderly parents, and achieve continuity of the family line.

In contrast to this practice of hiring wet nurses, Gruber (1989) argues that within ancient Israel, women breastfed their babies up until the age of three, leading to lower fertility. For instance, Gruber (1989: 69, and n. 44) looks to texts such as Isa. 28.9–10 that appear to imply that weaning occurs at the time of learning to read, at roughly age three. Corroborating this view is 2 Macc. 7.27 (Gruber, 1989: 66), which gives the example of the Judean mother urging her son to be strong and face martyrdom in the face of Antiochus: in a private speech, she reminds her son that she carried him for nine months in her womb, nursed him for three years, and subsequently reared him until adulthood. Whatever the apologetic Maccabean lens of this scene, it seems that the periods of time ascribed to each phase of the son’s life (in utero, nursing, and general caregiving beyond that) reflect a longstanding cultural norm.

If so, there must have been a reason for Israelite mothers choosing to breastfeed their own children as opposed to hiring wet nurses. It is here that the argument that breast milk transfers identity recommends itself. Specifically, Chapman (2012: 3) argues that breast milk offers “kinship relatedness” in the Hebrew Bible and looks to the examples named above of Sarah, Moses’ mother, and Hannah. Meanwhile, Penniman (2017: 58) makes the case that mother’s milk accentuates the connection “between physical nourishment and intellectual formation.” Penniman makes this argument on the basis of a variety of texts from within ancient Judaism and Christianity. Within the transmission of ancient Jewish tradition, nearness to the bosom, too, suggests the transfer of wisdom from caregiver to child. In one rabbinic text, b. Ber. 10a, we find the notion that the bosom, in its closeness to the heart, imparts wisdom. In this way, Rosenblum (2016: 156–57) observes that the mother imparts understanding to the child.⁸ Breast milk and nearness to the bosom both indicate a specific transfer of ancestral knowledge and wisdom.

In light of the above, it is sensible, in the book of Ruth, that Ruth herself should not be the one to breastfeed Obed. While certainly we can agree with Quick (2020: 61) that Ruth is described as both insider and outsider, with Ruth being a Moabitess and ancestor of Israel (see Ruth 4.11–12), scholars have noted the various ways the narrative makes Ruth’s foreigner Moabite status abundantly clear. Not only is she described as a Moabite (e.g., Ruth 2.13; 4.5), and a foreigner (Ruth 2.10) (Quick: 2020: 56), but also she errs by using the masculine plural for “lads” when she should be describing young lasses, in Ruth 2.21 (“Ruth the Moabite said, ‘He even said to me, “Stay close by my [male] servants (נערים‎), until they have finished my harvest”’; cf. Ruth 2.8, “Then Boaz said to Ruth, ‘Now listen, my daughter, do not go to glean in another field or leave this one, but keep close to my young women (נערֹתי‎)’”). Lim (2011: 107) argues convincingly that the “author” of Ruth intended her to “slip up,” a “common mistake of bilinguals.”

The above suggests that if Boaz is to be the father of Obed, who is the father of Jesse, who is the father of the one who becomes King David of all of Israel, then it will not suffice to have David’s identity, whether in the form of kinship, knowledge, or other, come from a Moabite woman. The Moabites, after all, are to be excluded from the assembly of the LORD, in the context of Deuteronomy, presumably meaning the sanctuary,⁹ even to the tenth generation (Deut. 23.3 [Eng.], “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD”).

3 Assessing Cases of אמן‎ and a Child in Care

With these background considerations in mind, let us move on to a survey of cases using the root “to nurse” (אמן‎) alongside terminology for a child in care.

3.1. Numbers 11.12–13

Did I conceive all this people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, “Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse (אמן‎) carries a sucking child (ינק‎),” to the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors? 13 Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they come weeping to me and say, “Give us meat to eat!”

In this first passage under consideration, we find Moses entreating God for assistance and intervention as Moses leads the Israelites through the desert. The LORD has become angry that the people are pleading for meat, despite being given manna for sustenance, and Moses’ entreaty describes his fatigue from metaphorically carrying the burden of this people all alone. In this instance, the analogy draws on both the root אמן‎ used to describe the “nurse” and the root ינק‎ here to describe a “suckler,” in other words, a nursing baby. In this case, we find what one could identify as “proof by pairing”: it seems natural here that the term אמן‎ should refer to a woman who cares for the child by providing nourishment through breastfeeding. Whereas Meyers (2000: 218) does not think the nurse in this instance represents a wet nurse, as the noun derived for caregiver is now in the masculine, McNeel (2014) draws attention to the fact that the metaphor in question concerns feeding and sustaining. More likely is the case that the nurse, in addition to carrying the child, also performs the duty of breastfeeding, as per the manner in which the child is qualified (here, as a suckler). In other words, as argued by McNeel (2014: 109), Moses is likening himself to a nursing mother.

The metaphor likely implies Moses as wet nurse, despite the use of the more general root אמן‎ to refer to nurse, nanny, or caregiver, because characters typically described in the masculine are also described in the feminine elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible. God is portrayed not only as a woman in labor (Isa. 42.14; 45.10) but also as a nursing mother in Isa. 49.15, “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you” (Claassens, 2012: 44–45). That a “masculine” term in Num. 11.12 can refer to the female act of breastfeeding seems apparent in light of these parallel metaphors found elsewhere within the Hebrew canon.

In this case, however, it does mean we must adjust Gruber’s hypothesis: though it is possible that Israelite tradition might favor a mother nursing her own child, perhaps Num. 11.12–13 alludes to an additional common practice of using a wet nurse. If so, then we might suggest that it is preferred for either the mother or an Israelite nurse to feed the child. This view is understandable in light of the fact that the nurse carries the sucking child in her bosom (חיק‎), in Num. 11.12: recall the connection of bosom as well as breast milk to the act of imparting wisdom. Numbers also implies a connection between ancestry (through the promised land) and the bosom and breast milk, as both impart identity and wisdom.

How does the passage align with the book of Ruth? Descriptors used in Ruth 4.16 parallel Num. 11.12–13 to an extent: Naomi, who also is described using the root אמן‎, takes the child in her bosom, too. However, the child in the book of Ruth is not described as a “suckler,” the חינק‎, as in Numbers, but rather as “child,” a noun derived from the root ילד‎ “to bear.” Thus far, in Ruth we do not find a case of “proof by pairing” (as seen in Numbers) to suggest Naomi as a literal wet nurse. Nevertheless, even without proof by pairing, the passage in Numbers highlights that the term for nurse, derived from the root for the more general “caregiver,” can imply another Israelite individual as wet nurse and purveyor of knowledge: in the passage, the theme of feeding is significant. In other words, the possibility of אמן‎ functioning as wet nurse in Ruth remains an option to explore.

3.2 2 Samuel 4.4

Saul’s son Jonathan had a son who was crippled in his feet. He was five years old (בן־חמשׁ שׁנים‎ lit. “a son of five years”) when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel. His nurse (אמנתו‎) picked him up and fled; and, in her haste to flee, it happened that he fell and became lame.

This second passage may function as a counterpoint to the preceding one. In the preceding example, we saw an instance of what one could define as “proof by pairing,” an occasion in which the root אמן‎ becomes clearly defined as a wet nurse, instead of solely a general caregiver, in other words, a kind of nanny, as the term is paired with the root for suckling in some way, such as the identifier of a breastfeeding baby. In the present example, however, the child is described as a son of five years, an age well beyond the point of weaning at age three.

Despite the child’s current age, nothing in the passage precludes the possibility that this nanny had functioned as a wet nurse earlier in the child’s life. Evidence is found within Roman writings that the wet nurse would continue to care for a child until the child was old enough to be schooled and transferred to the supervision of a “paedagogus,” a private tutor.¹⁰ Obviously the Roman Empire is far removed in time from the late monarchic (at least) or even exilic period associated with the Deuteronomistic history; nevertheless, the idea that the wet nurse performs other caregiving and even household roles is also evident in rabbinic literature. We find the wet nurse performing general duties such as watching over the sleeping baby, in Gen. Rab. 2.2: “Said R. Tanhuma, ‘The matter may be compared to a prince who was sleeping in his cradle, and his nurse-maid (מניקתו‎) was unformed and void [in total confusion]. Why? Because she knew that she was destined to receive her fate on account of the prince. . . .’¹¹ We also find the possibility of female slaves wet nursing or performing various other household duties such as cooking, as seen in m. Ketub. 5.5:

These are works which the wife must perform for her husband: grinding flour and baking bread and washing clothes and cooking food and giving suck to her child (מֵנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ‎) and making ready his bed and working in wool. If she brought him in one bondwoman (שִׁפְחָה‎) she need not grind or bake or wash; if two, she need not cook or give her child suck; if three, she need not make ready his bed or work in wool; if four, she may sit [all the day] in a chair.¹²

It is feasible that the nurse of 2 Sam. 4.4 is described using the general descriptor for a caregiver, precisely because it can be employed to describe the same woman whose duties change over time, due to the aging of the child. In other words, the manner in which the אמנת‎-nurse is defined, on the basis of the type of care provided, is variable, depending on the manner in which the child in care is described. In Numbers 11, the baby is a “suckler,” and therefore the nurse is a wet nurse, whereas in 2 Samuel 4, the child is a five-year-old boy, and the nurse is (now) strictly a nanny, but may have been a wet nurse previously.¹³

The situation here is akin to Ruth 4.16, where, the term paired with Naomi as caregiver “nurse” is ילד‎, which implies a baby or young child, but does not refer specifically to suckling. This term, too, however, has a range of meanings, as baby Moses was described as a ילד‎ when nursed by his own mother. Sarah’s son, Isaac, is also described as a ילד‎ during this child’s breastfeeding and subsequent weaning, as the vav-consecutive (the “and”) in the sentence suggests as a continuous series of narrative events:¹⁴ “The child grew, and (then) was weaned (ויגדל הילד ויגמל‎)” (Gen. 21.8). We find that the reference to Naomi as nurse (אמן‎) to Obed the child (ילד‎) uses two nouns that both have a range of meaning that can at times include a baby’s feeding. The narrative seems to have been constructed to purposefully remain ambiguous on the matter.

3.3 Esther 2.7

Mordecai had brought up (אמן‎) Hadassah, that is Esther, his cousin, for she had neither father nor mother; the girl (הנערה‎) was fair and beautiful, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai adopted her (lit. “took her”) as his own daughter.

In this third example, we find the root אמן‎ used to describe the male cousin, Mordecai, as caregiver for his relative, Esther. While some traditions interpret Mordecai as taking Esther as his wife (e.g., LXX; b. Meg. 13a, reading בית‎ for “house,” representing a wife, instead of בת‎ for “daughter,”) generally Esther is viewed as being adopted or fostered as a daughter. Such a reading is preferable considering that Esther proceeds to the king’s palace in line with the decree in Esth. 2.2 that it is beautiful young women or virgins (בתולות‎) who are to be sent. Upon initial inspection, this example seems to support the majority opinion noted at the outset, that the root אמן‎ is used to describe a caregiver more generally. And we do find that in this case the term is not paired in any way with a nominal form of the root to indicate suckling but rather the term for a young girl or woman, a “lass (נערה‎).”

While we can confirm that in this case the אמן‎ represents a caregiver who is not a wet nurse, nevertheless, we find evidence that the term indicates more than solely a caregiving nanny. Subsequent to Esther’s marriage to the Persian King Ahasuerus, the Jews are threatened with annihilation through a series of events thanks to the king’s plotting right-hand man, Haman. At Mordecai’s encouragement, Esther must confront the king (her husband) with the news that it is her people who will perish thanks to the decree for destruction he condoned at Haman’s request.

The point of this summary is to highlight that it is Mordecai who instructs and reminds Esther of her own heritage and identity when he admonishes her that the salvation of her people hinges entirely on her revealing her Jewish identity to the king (see Esth. 4.13–14).¹⁵ Chapman (2012: 38) rightly notes that Mordecai in his role, “conferred upon Esther her Jewish identity.” In other words, Mordecai has become a metaphorical wet nurse, transferring to Esther knowledge of her Jewish heritage and kinship.

Up to this point, we have seen that the root אמן‎ may be used to describe a nurse whose responsibilities vis-à-vis a child change over the course of the child’s maturation. From this third example, we also find the term used to refer to the metaphorical or symbolic role of wet nurse, transferring Israelite identity to a child, when breastfeeding cannot occur.

3.4 Isaiah 60.4

Lift up your eyes and look around; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from far away, and your daughters (ובנתיך‎) shall be carried on the arms of their nurses (תאמנה‎).

In this final prophetic and poetic example, we find the pairing of the “nurse” (from the root אמן‎), with children described as “daughters.” The MT apparatus indicates that the 1QIsa^b manuscript from Qumran reads תנשינה‎ (their women) instead of nurses. The Qumran manuscript suggests that a feminine form of these nurses is intended. Once again, the children receiving care do not appear as infants, and so it makes sense that the caregiver is not described as a wet nurse specifically, but rather using a term that may indicate care through all stages of a child’s life. Just as there is nothing to indicate that this female nanny never performed a role of wet nursing in the past, neither is there proof that she did, apart from a long tradition of such a custom.

Of interest here in Isaiah 60 is the manner in which this chapter in Third Isaiah embarrasses foreigners: they shall “build up your walls” (Isa. 60.10), while those dispersed, such as those children in Isa. 60.4, shall be brought back.¹⁶ Given that there are relatively few passages drawing on the אמן‎ as female nurse in respect to a child from the outset, one may wonder whether there is an intended connection between the nurse of Isa. 60.4 and Naomi as nurse in Ruth 4.16. The nurses in Isa 60.4 are Judahite, as is Naomi. Meanwhile, Ruth, who is Moabite, is not the nurse of Obed.

Once again, where does that leave Naomi? Certainly, the אמן‎ can be used to describe a female nurse. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that she could not have at one time functioned as a wet nurse. All that need be done is change the description of the child; in other words, it is the child’s state that changes over time and implies the understanding of אמן‎ as a nurse rather than the root אמן‎ itself. Furthermore, as was seen with the case of Num. 11.12–13, the Israelite (or Judahite) identity of the nurse is also relevant in relation to the Israelite (or Judahite) child.

4 Assessment of Findings

To summarize, the character of Naomi is defined as a “nurse” to the baby Obed (Ruth 4.16), drawing on a term understood to date to mean a general caregiver and not a wet nurse. Although born to Ruth, the neighborhood women suggest that Obed is Naomi’s son (Ruth 4.17). Obed’s lineage is of the utmost importance, as through Obed will come David, future king of Israel. For that reason, to understand the locus of Obed’s identity transmission becomes critical. From whom does Obed gain his Israelite kinship? In light of the above analysis, a number of findings emerge.

First, this essay has found that the root אמן‎ can mean a wet nurse in addition to a general nurse, a “nanny,” or foster-father. The fact that the term מנקת‎ most clearly means a wet nurse does not preclude any other term also laying claim to a wet nursing function. Instead, the אמן‎ or אמנת‎ can have the meaning of nanny, foster-father, or wet nurse based on two variables.

The first variable is the context, such as Num. 11.12’s metaphor of feeding: the metaphor paired with the image of nurse and suckling child describing Moses’ role as providing sustenance to the wandering Israelites also suggests that the “nurse” simile functions in a feeding capacity.

The second variable is the term used to describe the child in care. In Num. 11.12, we find an infant “suckler,” and this “proof by pairing” would indicate that the אמן‎ functions as wet nurse. The child of five years, the ילד‎, however, in 2 Sam 4.4, is no longer being breastfed. Nevertheless, the root אמן‎ could indicate that this woman had, at one point, also served as the child’s wet nurse. As in 2 Sam 4.4, the term used in the book of Ruth to describe Obed is ילד‎, the noun derived from the root “to bear.” This term, while not requiring that the child be a “suckler,” can also be used to describe a time when one is nursed with milk. Thus we find ourselves in Ruth 4.16 with the pairing of two words, drawing on the roots ילד‎ and אמן‎, that can each refer to a breastfed child.

Consequently, a contribution of this study is that it offers a new overall definition of the אמן‎ or אמנת‎-nurse: rather than it referring to solely a general nurse or caregiver, a more apt description of this term, as the scriptural evidence suggests, is instead something along the lines of “wet nurse -and,” to allow for the term to cover a wider range of duties or be used in a metaphorical sense.

The second crucial finding pertains to Obed’s identity transmission through Naomi’s particular milk-sustenance. In this regard, we should first consider Naomi’s function as nurse in respect to Ruth’s Moabite status. Admittedly, Ruth is neither completely effaced nor debased: the neighborhood women of Bethlehem remind Naomi that Ruth has borne Obed and that she is “more to you than seven sons” (Ruth 4.17).¹⁷ Nevertheless, as argued by Thambyrajah (2021: 63), Ruth “remains a Moabite even at the end of the book,” and finds a certain inclusion, though not as an Israelite. Meanwhile, Naomi is very clearly a Judahite. In Esther, though metaphorical, Mordecai’s role as nurse in Esther 2 focuses on her Jewish identity. It was Mordecai who was responsible for encouraging Esther to make her Jewish identity known to the king to save her people. In addition, the nurse of Isaiah 60, in the chapter’s wider context, contrasts the gathering of the Israelite children in care with the embarrassment of gentiles. Furthermore, the nurse in Numbers 11 focuses on the conveyance of breast milk and bosom knowledge. In terms of outcomes, first, the nurse’s role is one of educator and transmitter of identity, and in the case of the examples assessed above, Israelite identity, specifically. Second, and related to the first point, it is by means of the act of nursing, through the literal or metaphorical transfer of milk, that identity is transferred.

For these reasons, we may conclude that the narrative in the book of Ruth signals that Naomi the Judahite functions as the literal wet nurse to Obed: she is called a nurse, she holds the baby in her bosom, and the baby is clearly of breastfeeding age. The reason this outcome is not obvious from the outset may have been intentional: the ambiguous use of terminology to refer to Naomi as a nursing mother may reflect the author’s reticence to describe Naomi as lactating when she herself had not physically birthed a baby for quite some time. The ambiguity allows readers to focus not on matters of narrative feasibility but instead on the fact that it is Naomi as wet nurse who transfers to Obed Judahite wisdom, kinship, and identity.

Footnotes

I would like to thank the Catholic Biblical Association for providing a venue to present an initial, shorter version of the paper as a research report at an annual international meeting and also those attendees of that session who offered valuable feedback on the paper.

ORCID iD

Carmen Palmer

1.

See Section 2 below for background on the practice of wet-nursing and identity transfer in the ancient Near East and ancient Mediterranean.

2.

Brown, Driver, and Briggs (2003: 52d) refers to Ruth 4.16 and 2 Sam. 4.4.

3.

Unless otherwise noted, citations from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are according to the NRSV (subject to minor modifications).

4.

Genesis 21.7–8 hints thus despite Sarah’s advanced age.

5.

: 25) argues that patrilineal descent (that the child of a Jewish man would take “the status of the father”) continues until the second century CE.

6.

Transcription and translation are according to : 120).

7.

Other reasons for using a wet nurse, such as inability to breastfeed, are discussed in : 26). Bradley furthermore indicates that nursing one’s own child was not customary within Roman tradition at large, including within households of individuals of freed status (1986: 201–2).

8.

Here, Rosenblum discusses rabbinic views on breastfeeding vis-à-vis purity and the distancing of the breasts from the woman’s vulva in order to distance the milk from its perceived source (menstrual flow).

9.

This passage is later interpreted as implying an intermarriage prohibition as well (see e.g. 4QMMT [Some Works of the Law] B 39–41). For this expansive interpretation, see : 37–38).

10.

On this schooling aspect of the nurse, see Treggiari (1976: 89); also : 110).

11.

Text and translation are according to : 22).

12.

English translation is according to : 252).

13.

While Hackett (2000: 260) argues this nurse is “not necessarily a wetnurse,” here, too, : 109) also confirms the notion of nurse as constant caregiver.

14.

: 22) describes the vav-consecutive in classical Hebrew as constituting the “main narrative style to express successive action [emphasis added].”

15.

: 180, see also 182) crystallizes the argument that assimilating into a foreign context by hiding one’s Jewish identity is unacceptable to proto-Masoretic editors of a proto-Esther. Macchi argues that Mordecai’s release of a loud cry in Esth. 4.1 is a “plus” that serves to highlight Mordecai’s public display of his Jewish identity in the crisis facing the Jews in the book of Esther.

16.

: 3) discusses the redactional quality of Third Isaiah that leaves the final impression that gentiles must either conform to Israelite religion or accept annihilation. Tiemeyer refers to Isa. 60.10 as an example of one of the passages that serve to humiliate gentiles.

17.

For example, see : 147).

References

Bernstein

(1996) The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations. In: Kampen

Bernstein

(eds) Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. SBLSS, vol. 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 29–51.

Bradley

(1991) Discovering the Roman Family: Studies in Roman Social History. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown

Driver

Briggs

(2003) אָמַן‎. In: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, pp. 52–53.

Chapman

(2012) “Oh that you were like a brother to me, one who had nursed at my mother’s breasts.” Breast milk as a kinship-forging substance. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12: 1–41.

Claassens

LJM

(2012) Mourner, Mother, Midwife: Reimagining God’s Delivering Presence in the Old Testament. Louisville; Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Cohen

SJD

(1989) Crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew. Harvard Theological Review 82: 13–33.

Danby

(2011) The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Flynn

(2018) Children in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gardner

(1986) Women in Roman Law and Society. London; Sydney: Croom Helm.

10.

Gruber

(1989) Breast-Feeding practices in biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 19: 61–83.

11.

Gruber

(2000) Nursing mothers. In: Meyers

Craven

Kraemer

(eds) Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanical Books, and the New Testament. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 321–322.

12.

Hackett

(1998) “There was no king in Israel”: The era of the Judges. In: Coogan

(ed) The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–164.

13.

Hackett

(2000) 2 Sam 4:4: Nurse of Mephibosheth. In: Meyers

Craven

Kraemer

(eds) Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanical Books, and the New Testament. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, p. 260.

14.

Hubbard

Jr (1988) The Book of Ruth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

15.

Kampen

(1981) Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

16.

LaCocque

(2004) Ruth: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

17.

Lim

(2011) ‘How good was Ruth’s Hebrew?’: Linguistic “otherness” in the Book of Ruth. In: Harlow

Hogan

Goff

(eds) The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John. J. Collins. Cambridge: Eerdmans, pp. 101–115.

18.

Macchi

J-D

(2018) Esther. Palmer C (transl) IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

19.

Matheny

(2020) Ruth in recent research. Currents in Biblical Research 19: 8–35.

20.

McNeel

(2014) Paul as Infant and Nursing Mother: Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Identity in 1 Thessalonians 2:5–8. ECL, vol. 12. Atlanta: SBL Press.

21.

Meyers

(2000) Num 11:12: Nurse. In: Meyers

Craven

Kraemer

(eds) Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanical Books, and the New Testament. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, p. 218.

22.

Neusner

(1985) Genesis Rabbah, Vol. 1. The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A new American translation. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

23.

Penniman

(2017) Raised on Christian Milk: Food and the Formation of the Soul in Early Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

24.

Quick

(2020) The Book of Ruth and the limits of proverbial wisdom. Journal of Biblical Literature 139: 47–66.

25.

Reinhartz

(2014) Ruth. In: Berlin

Brettler

(eds) The Jewish Study Bible. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1573–1580.

26.

Rosenblum

(2016) “Blessings of the breasts”: Breastfeeding in rabbinic literature. Hebrew Union College Annual 87: 145–177.

27.

Roth

(1997) Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Second edition. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

28.

Smith

(1991) The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

29.

Tervanotko

(2017) “The Princess did provide all things, as though I were her own” (Exagoge 37–38): Reading Exodus 2 in the late Second Temple era. In: Schuller

Wacker

(eds) Early Jewish Writings. Bible and Women 3.1. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, pp. 143–164.

30.

Thambyrajah

(2021) Israelite or Moabite? Ethnicity in the Book of Ruth. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46: 44–63.

31.

Tiemeyer

L-S

(2017) Death or conversion: The Gentiles in the concluding chapters in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of the Twelve. Journal of Theological Studies 68: 1–22.

32.

Treggiari

(1976) Jobs for women. American Journal of Ancient History 1: 76–104.

33.

Trible

(2000) Ruth. In Meyers

Craven

Kraemer

34.

Yee

(2009) “Take this child and suckle it for me”: Wet nurses and resistance in ancient Israel. Biblical Theology Bulletin 39: 1–10.