I have been asked to discuss the concept of ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible, a subject that has been studied by Sages and scholars since antiquity. There is little likelihood of saying anything new; the best I can do is to suggest a method for getting at the core meanings attendant upon this concept, which is fundamental to Israelite religion, and expresses an important, ethical message. It operates on two planes: the human-to-human encounter, and the human-to-divine encounter, where ḥesed is an attribute of God.

I begin by noting the fact that the Hebrew noun ḥesed has no known etymology; the few verbal forms which do occur are denominative, which is to say, they are derived from the noun itself. The noun is not derived from a verbal stem, as is most often the case in classical Hebrew. Hence, we learn its meaning entirely from context and usage. There is another linguistic factor to be considered: often, the method employed in the analysis of Hebrew ḥesed will involve hendiadys (“two that are one”), namely, applying the rule that one of two words connected by a conjunction may define the other, rather than expressing a separate idea. A classic example, often cited, is Genesis 47:29:

The Hebrew reads: ḥesed we’emet “ḥesed and truth,” and one might conclude that two, separate concepts are being expressed. However, it is preferable to conclude that ’emet defines ḥesed, which is here the primary concept. This explains the above translation. As the Jewish Sages put it: “a ḥesed of truth,” a deed that would not likely be rewarded, since Jacob/Israel was soon to die. This, then, is the first step toward establishing the core meaning of ḥesed: It is an act of kindness and love undertaken without expectation of reward, or reciprocity. In turn, this leads us to a further observation: Most often, one “does, performs” ḥesed, an act conveyed here and in many biblical texts by the verb ‘āśāh “to do.” Ḥesed is an “action concept,” not merely an abstract idea, or state of being.

The Story of Ruth: Ḥesed at Work in the Israelite Family

In Ruth 3:10 we read the words of Boaz to Ruth:

To set the scene: Ruth, a Moabite woman, had decided to accompany Naomi, her Judean mother-in-law, back to Bethlehem in Judah instead of doing the usual thing by returning to her own family in Moab after her husband’s untimely death. That was Ruth’s first kindness, as we read in Ruth 1:8, when Naomi and her two, widowed daughters-in-law were still on their way back to Judah:

This statement conveys two messages: By their initial willingness to stay with Naomi, the two daughters-in-law had acted with kindness, and what is more—their ḥesed was toward the dead; in this case, their Judean husbands. Then, too, we are told that these women merited God’s ḥesed by virtue of their having acted with ḥesed toward others.

In the face of repeated urgings by Naomi, Ruth nevertheless accompanies her to Judah. The two women were impoverished, with no one to care for them, and furthermore, Naomi’s family estate remained in default and would need to be recovered. On her own initiative, Ruth went to glean in the fields of Naomi’s clan relative, Boaz, in the hope of appealing to him for assistance. We are to imagine a situation where Ruth would have had offers of marriage by the young men harvesting in the fields, who were unrelated to her by family. If she were to take up with one of them, there would be no one to carry on the line of Naomi’s family. Ruth’s faithfulness to her mother-in-law, and to her late husband’s mišpāḥāh “clan, extended family,” was her second act of ḥesed, a commitment which takes on a religious tone in Ruth 1:16–17, 2: 11–12. She had sought haven in the land of Israel’s God.

Thus it is that human ḥesed evokes a divine response, and we read further of God’s ḥesed in Ruth 2: 20. This was after Ruth told Naomi how Boaz had protected her, and allotted her added grain. Then Naomi said to her daughter-in-law: “He (=Boaz) is blessed by the LORD, who has not forsaken his ḥesed with the living or the dead.”

As the story continues, we see that special acts of kindness were needed to hold the family together; doing only what was required by law and custom would not have sufficed. It is interesting, however, that Boaz’ considerable kindnesses in this regard are never explicitly referred to as acts of ḥesed. Instead, the kindness in those instances is attributed to God. Boaz was God’s agent, sent to care for Ruth and Naomi, and to restore the family estate. This all reveals the unusual genealogy of the Davidic royal family, brought into being and sustained by acts of both human and divine ḥesed.

Plural, Ḥasādîm: God’s Kindnesses

In the biblical view, only God performs ḥasādîm! This conclusion, which will prove to be significant, emerges from a word-study of the plural form which shows that the LORD is the active subject. There are only three passages that might allow for a different interpretation, but which, upon closer examination, prove not to be exceptions at all. The first is Isaiah 55:3:

One could take this to mean: “the acts of ḥesed performed by David,” but the parallelism is with “everlasting covenant,” which is an expression of God’s ḥesed. These words hark back to the dynastic covenant with David recorded in 2 Samuel, chapter 7, especially verse 16: “ My ḥesed shall not turn away from him.” Isaiah of the Exile resonates with that earlier covenant promise in this prophecy of Israel’s restoration, which further recalls the hendiadys: habberît wehaḥesed “ the covenant of ḥesed”(Deut 7: 6, 12, 1 Kings 3:26).

The plural ḥasādâw “his acts of ḥesed” also occurs in two redactional entries in 2 Chronicles, one referring to Hezekiah and the other to Josiah. Thus, 2 Chron 32:32:

The same entry recurs in 2 Chron 35: 26 with reference to Josiah. Such frequent entries in 2 Chronicles rephrase those in 2 Kings, but only these two instances mention ḥasādîm, leaving us with two possibilities: (a) Reference is to the kindnesses performed by Hezekiah and Josiah, who were the most virtuous of the Judean kings, or (b) Reference is to the kindnesses conferred on the two exceptional kings. If the latter explanation is accepted, we have yet another resonance of the dynastic covenant with the House of David. Also in favor of the latter rendering is the narrative of Isaiah’s entreaty on behalf of an ailing Hezekiah, which was effective in lengthening the king’s life, a clear instance of God’s kindness (2 Kings 20: 4–11). Josiah was less fortunate, but he, too, was promised divine kindness in consideration of his submission to God’s will. He would be gathered in peace to his ancestors, and spared witnessing the devastation that would befall Judah and Jerusalem ( 2 Kings 22: 18–20).

Actually, the first occurrence of the plural, ḥasādîm as signifying God’s kindness is to be found in the Jacob narrative, in Genesis, chapter 32. On his way back to Canaan, Jacob prepares for the unavoidable confrontation with his brother, Esau. He is in a state of fear, and prays to the LORD:

Once again, we have hendiadys; not “truth and kindness,” but rather: “true kindness.” Reference is to the wealth accumulated by Jacob in Haran with Laban, where he had first arrived with nothing but his staff! Now Jacob needed additional acts of kindness from God to survive the threat from Esau, and he accordingly reminds God, as it were, that He had promised to make Israel a great nation. This narrative affords an insight into the dynamics of ḥesed by introducing the factor of human unworthiness. As the Psalmist put it: “If You willkeep account of sins, O LORD, Adonai! Who will survive?” (Ps 130:3).

Note: All translations of biblical texts are the responsibility of this author, and are intended to clarify the special subjects under discussion. Readers should not be surprised to find that they often differ from accepted Bible translations. Readers may wish to consult my study: “In Praise of the Israelite Mišpāḥâ: Legal Themes in the Book of Ruth,” now reprinted in: In Pursuit of Meaning; Collected Studies of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Andrew D. Gross, Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011, Vol.2: 45–56.

About the author

Baruch Levine wrote 3 articles for this publication.

Baruch Levine is the Skirball Professor Emeritus of Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University. An ordained rabbi, Dr. Levine spent most of his prolific career in the classroom, contributing his scholarship on the Torah to rabbis, clergy and scholars.

• Blog