In the book of Ruth it never openly states that she converts and in fact she is referred to as Ruth the Moabite throughout the text. At what point, chronologically, did she in fact convert?
-
2bookofruth, welcome to Judaism.SE, and thanks very much for this interesting question! Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. – Isaac Moses May 07 '12 at 15:03
5 Answers
With regard to when she converted, both Ibn Ezra and Ralbag seem to believe that she converted before she married Machlon, being that we don't find any mention of her conversion afterwards and Boaz certainly would not have married her otherwise.
Akeidas Yitzchak condemns this approach, though, since Naami explicitly tells her to return to her people, and why would Naami try to convince her to retract her conversion? (Although Ralbag does mention that this was because Naami wanted to see if her conversion was legitimately sincere.) Akeidas Yitzchak therefore believes that Ruth converted on the way with Naami.
Alshich also follows this approach, pointing to the fact that the Talmud Bavli (Yevamos 47) learns from the dialogue between Naami and Ruth with regards to the laws of conversion.
As for why the text continues to refer to her as "המואביה", first of all, as @Alex has noted in the comments to the other answers, it is not uncommon to find someone referred to by the country of origin even if they are no longer associated with it. Second, it is important to keep in mind the purpose of Megillas Ruth in the first place. Abarbanel writes that Shmuel Hanavi wrote Ruth after he anointed David to highlight David's ancestry and to show that he came from noble stock. The Chida writes that Shmuel wrote Megillas Ruth to counter the claims that arose later against David's kingship saying that he was unfit being that he descended from a Moabite which the Torah prohibits entering our nation. The famous response to this was "מואבי ולא מואביה" (only male Moabites are prohibited to marry). Shmuel wished to show how even though Ruth was a Moabite, she was a righteous woman and earned the respect and marriage of the great shofet Boaz. (Chida refers to this as Shmuel's "p'sak" that David was legitimate.)
With that in mind, it is quite possible to say that the reason the text continues to stress her Moabite origins is precisely to counter that claim that was common at the time of its authorship. In other words: even though she was a Moabite, look how great she was and how Boaz accepted her etc. However, Alshich writes the opposite. When he sees the text refer to Ruth as "מואביה", he explains that even though she had already converted, she still retained some of the nature of her original upbringing in the way she conducted herself. He explains at length what it was that she did that was "Moabite in nature".
- 28,533
- 2
- 72
- 159
There are indeed a lot of opinions on when Ruth underwent conversion. Rashi (to Ruth 1:12) states that she (and Orpah) were still gentiles when they were on the road back to Eretz Yisrael (indeed, we derive from their conversation the halachah that we are to attempt to dissuade a prospective convert (Yevamos 47b)). On the other hand, Zohar Chadash strongly takes issue with the idea that Machlon could have married a non-Jew; it explains that basically he coerced her into converting (and then, only after her husband's death, did she accept Judaism voluntarily).
I once suggested (Kovetz Haoros Ubeurim Oholei Torah, no. 982, page 76), based on some other Midrashic statements, that at the time of her marriage Ruth was halachically not yet an adult, because she was an ailonis (a woman who never undergoes the normal bodily changes of puberty) but didn't exhibit the symptoms thereof (listed in Rambam, Hil. Ishus 2:6); in that case she reaches halachic maturity only at age 35 (ibid. 2:4). So Machlon had her converted as a child (as per the halachah - Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 268:7), but once she reached halachic adulthood she had the opportunity to renounce her conversion (ibid.) - and that's why Naomi had to point out to her the full ramifications of her decision, so that her acceptance of the mitzvos would be a conscious one.
(And once this was accomplished, then it retroactively validated her conversion as a child - just as is true today when a child is converted and then continues to keep mitzvos after bar/bas mitzvah; thus, no further conversion ceremony was needed when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael, and indeed none is recorded.)
- 90,513
- 2
- 162
- 379
-
that is a very interesting solution. I wonder how this would effect the existence of a mitzvah of yibum. If she was a minor at the time of her husband's death would the mitzvah of yibum still apply once she attained her majority?
I would further reiterate my question in the comment above, that if this is the case why does the megilah continue to refer to her as rus ha'moaviah?
– bookofruth May 07 '12 at 16:11 -
1Note that answer would ostensibly also have to assume that Orpah was an ailonis as well. – bookofruth May 07 '12 at 16:17
-
@bookofruth, you may wish to ask that (why the m'gila refers to her as a Moabite after she was converted) as a separate question. – msh210 May 07 '12 at 16:19
-
A ketana can certainly be mezukeket leyibbum (read: a female minor whose husband dies childless is obligated in yibbum or chalitza to the husbands brothers if he has any.) – Double AA May 07 '12 at 16:19
-
@msh210 I believe the two points are intertwined, the fact that she is continually called a moabite seems to indicate the she has not converted. to prove that she converted at any point I believe one needs to address this second issue as well. should I perhaps add it to the original question? – bookofruth May 07 '12 at 16:21
-
@bookofruth: even the actual mitzvah of yibbum (with a brother's wife) does indeed apply if she was still a minor at her husband's death (Rambam, Hil. Yibbum VaChalitzah 1:17); all the more so here, where it was a voluntary type of yibbum (since Machlon wasn't Boaz's brother). As for "ha-Moaviah" - as DoubleAA (and I) pointed out in the comments to Eytan's answer, that simply describes her (original) ethnicity or place of residence, with no bearing on her religion and (new) nationhood. – Alex May 07 '12 at 16:22
-
@bookofruth: about Orpah, it could be that she was too. But there's no indication (AFAIK) that she and Ruth were the same age; conceivably she could indeed have been a minor in age when she married Kilion, and reached puberty around the time they left Moav. – Alex May 07 '12 at 16:24
-
@Alex, Re "that simply describes her (original) ethnicity or place of residence": Compare "אוריה החתי" or "עובד-אדום הגתי". – jake May 07 '12 at 16:28
-
@Alex, Oh, I see you already made that point in the comments to the other answer. – jake May 07 '12 at 16:33
-
@bookofruth, re "the fact that she is continually called a moabite seems to indicate the she has not converted", see the comments on Eytan Yammer's answer. Re "to prove that she converted at any point I believe one needs to address this second issue as well", I disagree and think it would make a fine (separate) question. – msh210 May 07 '12 at 18:33
In this shiur Rabbi Daniel Glatstein makes the point, based on the Tzafnas Paneach, that it is possible that Rus and Orpah converted before they married but that their conversion was in doubt. He points to Rambam issurei biah 13:14-15 which states that if there is reason to suspect that the conversion was for reasons beside belief (money, power, love etc.) then the conversion has to be investigated. He goes on to say that Naomi probed the motives behind the conversion of her daughter in laws during her trek home as did Boaz during his initial meeting with Rus. Once Rus came to Boaz at night this clinched his belief that her conversion was for the right reasons and he immediately proceeds to "redeem" her.
I believe that it is the Malbim who says that when Ruth Says Ameikh Ami Elokayikh Elokai (your nation is my nation your God is my God) it means that Ruth has taken on keeping the mitzvoth and at this point begins living as a Jew.
It is clear (at least from the p'shat of the text)that she didn't go through any formal conversion process that we would recognize today. This book is often used by people who want to undermine modern halakhic standards of giyur.
- 1,652
- 13
- 9
-
1I don't see that in the Malbim. In fact the Malbim on that verse implies the opposite: that the Giyur only happened when they got back to Israel מלבי"ם רות פרק א פסוק טז
שאף אם אצטרך לעזבך לא אשוב מאחריך לארץ מואב כי בכל זה אלך לארץ יהודה ואתגייר שם ע"י אחרים
– Double AA May 07 '12 at 15:35 -
And so by implication this is when it happened no? isnt the malbim saying that if you were not to accept me right here and now I would do it anyway with someone else. – Eytan Yammer May 07 '12 at 15:40
-
Also I think you are making a very weak diyuk about the process: just because the pasuk doesn't describe what nussach habracha she used at the mikva doesn't mean she didn't go through some formal conversion process. (I'm not saying that she necessarily really did say a bracha, just that this absence of evidence is not too glaring to learn anything from.) – Double AA May 07 '12 at 15:40
-
1ALl I said was that the pashut phsat is that none of this happened. I also said that people use this to try and undermine the halakhic requirements of giyur which I should I guess have qualified. I think that anyone who uses Ruth to do so is absolutely wrong and doing something atrocious – Eytan Yammer May 07 '12 at 15:43
-
4I'm saying I don't even think it's pashut pshat. Is it pashut pshat that Rut never ate breakfast? We only see her eating dinner! Not everything missing never happened. There has to be some reason for the details to be there before we can question why they aren't. – Double AA May 07 '12 at 15:45
-
מלבי"ם רות פרק א פסוק טז
כי מגמת הליכתי הוא מצד כי עמך עמי ואלהיך אלהי, שכבר תפשתי תורת אלהיך ומנהגי בני עמך ואני כאחת מבני עמך: ok so this is the end of malbim it says clearly that she had already accepted torah
– Eytan Yammer May 07 '12 at 15:53 -
@EytanYammer if that is the case how do we explain that scripture continues to call her Ruth the Moabite? – bookofruth May 07 '12 at 15:54
-
@DoubleAA I think it would need to say that she converts if scripture tells you at the beginning that she is a gentile and she ends up marrying Boaz, the leader of the generation. The ikar is chasar from the sefer! I believe your reading of the malbim is correct, as she would need witnesses to her tevilah, but that comes back to above comment, why does she continue to be referred to as Ruth the Moabite if she has converted? – bookofruth May 07 '12 at 15:57
-
1@EytanYammer All that says is she started keeping the customs of the Jews, something all converts start doing before they convert. Still much more likely that she converted when she got back. – Double AA May 07 '12 at 16:01
-
2@bookofruth Moabite is an demonym not a religion. Just like African-Americans are Americans of African descent. It doesn't change their American-ness. So too Ruth could be Jewish and still be the the Jewess-from-Moab. – Double AA May 07 '12 at 16:03
-
1Indeed, to buttress @DoubleAA's last point, Kiddushin 76b explains that some of David's soldiers who bear foreign place names (Tzelek "the Ammonite"; Uriah "the Hittite") simply lived there, but were actually born Jews. All the more so, then, that Ruth, who actually was ethnically a Moabite by birth and lived there for the first part of her life, could still be referred to as such even after her conversion. – Alex May 07 '12 at 16:09
-
@DoubleAA that argument is not persuasive as, at best, the word becomes superfluous each and every time it is used and at worst it is a stinging reminder of her gentile past which the Torah instructs us not to do. – bookofruth May 07 '12 at 16:12
-
@DoubleAA I can accept that she actually underwent conversion, whatever that looked like in those days when she arrived in Israel. In my mind, the only hint at a moment of transition in the p'shat of the text are those p'ssukim from perek aleph. All the other inferences are great but less supported by the p'shat. So if I had to rephrase my answer I would say. The only indication in the pshat of the text is that the conversion happened at that point. However there are those who suggest that she converted when she arrived in yehuda. – Eytan Yammer May 07 '12 at 16:21
-
I would also say that the end of the malbim of and I am as one of your nation is telling. – Eytan Yammer May 07 '12 at 16:22
-
4@bookofruth: actually, in every place where she's called "ha-Moaviah" it's in third-person narration or conversation; she's never called that to her face. – Alex May 07 '12 at 16:26
-
@Alex that is not correct see Ruth 4:5 וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז, בְּיוֹם-קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי; וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה – Jun 02 '14 at 13:06
While many believe Ruth converted when she said in 1:16, that “your G-d is my G-d,” Gersonides, also known as Ralbag interpreted chapter 1 to be saying that Orpah and Ruth converted to Judaism prior to marrying Mahlon and Chilion, and the proof is that her conversion is not mentioned for Boaz. Naomi even later tested them to see if they have converted. Thus, the rabbi disagreed as to when Ruth converted.
- 705
- 4
- 13