Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Just When Did Ruth Convert (and When Did Orpah Not)?

My grandson (a recent nursery school graduate with the certificate signed by more people than signed my Ph.D) gleefully told me that once someone becomes a Jew he can never go back to being a goy.  He had been learning, of course, about Ruth before Shavuos.  (Sorry about using her goyish name, but I can't figure out a good transliteration of רות -- Rus/Ruhs/Rüs/Rʌs/...)  Since he is not quite five, we haven't taken that deep dive into his ייחוס (or lack thereof; we sometimes refer to it is our yechuss).  I just said, "Yes, honey, I know."

One of the problems of the whole story, though, is precisely when did Ruth convert?  It seems hard to imagine that Elimelech or (maybe "all the more so") his wife Naomi would allow their boys to marry non-Jewish girls.  Yet, if Ruth and Orpah did convert before marrying, then how does Naomi have the right to even attempt to send these two Jewish girls back to their family homes and religion of idolatry?  And if they only provisionally converted, then Ruth's conversion is good retroactively -- but Orpah's retraction is also retroactive and we are back to the one of the boys marrying a shiksa.

Based on a shiur I heard over Shavuos and later discussions with the magid shiur, I have a theory.

Here is what you already know about conversion to Torah Judaism: The convert must be accept upon himself as completely binding without reservation the entire Torah as understood and transmitted to use through the ages by our sages of every generation and that acceptance must be made formally before a kosher Jewish court.  There is also immersion in a kosher mikvah (no big deal) and for the male convert there is also circumcision.  You'll just have to take my word for it that even the circumcision is no big deal compared to the unconditional acceptance of Torah.

Here are two things you might not know about conversion to Torah Judaism.  If a person were to accept 612 of the 613 mitzvos -- demurring on only one mitzvah, no matter how "minor" -- then there is no conversion and he remains a goy.  If, on the other hand, a person has never in his life seen anything but the Reform Jewish religion and he thinks that is, nebbich, the real deal and he can find a kosher Jewish Court before whom to declare his unconditional acceptance of the Torah as he knows is -- then it is a good conversion!

How about this one: a convert is intentionally mislead and not told about one mitzvah.  Suppose, for example, their teacher intentionally left out the ban on pork.  Sometime later, maybe years later, he is informed that pork is actually forbidden.  It seems, then, that the convert should have the option to either remain Jewish or to recant and revert to being a goy.  While I have no proof of that, I do know that when a non-Jewish child is adopted by a frum family, then the child undergoes immersion (and circumcision, if a boy) and the parents accept to raise him as a Jew.  The child is Jewish.  However, at bar/bat mitzvah, the child is given the choice to remain Jewish or to opt out.  I believe the principle is that he was not in a position to make an informed, reasonable choice, so he gets this one time opportunity to reconsider.  The same would logically seem to apply to our poor convert who was mislead.

Who would do such a thing?  Machlon and Kilyon, that's who.  When they taught Ruth and Orpah everything about Torah Judaism, they left out the fact that a Moabite is not allowed to marry into the Jewish congregation.  (A Moabite can convert, he would just be forbidden to marry.)  They (Machlon and Kilyon, that is) left that "little" fact out, of course, because they were intent on marrying Ruth and Orpah, respectively.  Ruth and Orpah, believing that they had complete knowledge of what it meant to be Jewish, accepted the Torah unconditionally.  When the boys died, Naomi let them know that they had been led astray and were missing some key knowledge.  Naomi didn't send them back, she was just letting them know that was an option.  With that new knowledge, Orpah opted out; and who could blame her?  Ruth, on the other hand, remained steadfast.

As it turns out, of course, a woman of Moab ancestry who converts is permitted to marry; it is only the Moabite men who may never marry into the Jewish community.  To Ruth, however, the details were immaterial.  Ruth converted because she wanted to do רצון השם/the Will of HaShem.

Ruth teaches us a powerful lesson of what it means to be a Jew.  Some things are harder than others; but the bottom line is/was/will always be that a Jew accepts to do רצון השם; unconditionally.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aru...