[Avodah] Would Ruth's conversion be rejected today?

[T613K at aol.com]

[1]  From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" _kennethgmiller at juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmiller at juno.com) 


R'  Gershon Dubin wrote:
> My recollection ... is that according to one man  de'amar in
> the Gemara, Boaz collected the 10 zekenim to publicize  the
> pesak of Moavi velo Moavis

R' Zev Sero responded:
>  Which had nothing at all to do with the validity of Ruth's
> giyur; there  is no indication that anybody ever doubted that,
> then or  later.

Yet Naami certainly did see problems with Orpah's giyur. So much  so, in 
fact, that she not only allowed Orpah to return to avodah zara, but she  
*encouraged* it. I suppose this is not a problem according to those who see  
Ruth's giyur as taking place in the latter part of the story, by "amech  ami".

But what about according to those who hold that they both converted  prior 
to marrying Machlon and Kilyon? Naami treated both Ruth and Orpah the same  
way, did she not? So if there were problems with the validity of Orpah's 
giyur,  there must have been problems with the validity of Ruth's.

Akiva  Miller

 
 
 




[2]  From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>

On 30/05/2012 4:32 PM,  kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
> I suppose this is not a problem  according to those who see Ruth's giyur
> as taking place in the latter  part of the story, by "amech ami".

Isn't that passage the source for  most of hilchos giyur?  Isn't that
where she accepted the yoke of  mitzvos, and went through a sampling
of "some of the light and heavy  mitzvos" as required in SA?


> But what about according to those  who hold that they both converted
> prior to marrying Machlon and  Kilyon?

I'm unfamiliar with these opinions.  Who are  they?

-- 
Zev Sero         
zev at sero.name    



>>>>
 
 
 
The opinion that Ruth and Orpah converted prior to marriage is common, I'm  
surprised it's unfamiliar to RZS.  I myself hardly know any sources, almost 
 all of the Torah Shebe'al Peh that I know, I only know Be'al Peh. But the 
reason  to assume that Ruth and Orpah converted prior to marriage is that  
otherwise, where is there any kind of mitzva of yibum here? If a man is 
married  to a non-Jewish woman and he dies childless, there is no mitzva to 
convert the  widow in order to perform yibum with her.  If they did /not/ convert 
prior  to marriage, and were non-Jews during their husbands' lifetimes, 
then Ploni  Almoni was quite right to refuse to marry Ruth, and how did Naomi 
have  the chutzpa to think that Ruth had any kind of claim on Boaz?!
 
RAM wrote that "Naami certainly did see problems with Orpah's giyur"  and 
that's why she sent Orpah back (and tried to send Ruth back as well).   He 
has a strong point but I would like to elaborate on it.  It's possible  that 
Ruth and Orpah did not convert prior to marriage and that Ruth only  
converted when she joined Naomi and went back to E'Y with her ("Amech ami" and  all 
that.)  OTOH it's also possible, and seemingly more likely, that they  did 
convert prior to marriage but that Naomi was uncertain as to whether their  
conversions were valid.  There are two possible reasons for her  uncertainty:
 
[a] She understood "lo yavo b'kehal Hashem" to mean that Moabites cannot  
convert (not just that they can't marry into the Jewish people) and she 
didn't  know or wasn't sure if that included the women.  Plus (Naomi may have  
thought), the fact that her two sons died after marrying these women may have  
indicated Divine displeasure with their marrying these Moabite women and a  
Heavenly indication that their conversions and marriages were not kosher.
 
  OR
 
[b] Maybe she was uncertain about the validity of their conversions for a  
different reason.  Maybe she did know that a Moabite woman's conversion  
could be accepted and a Moabite giyores could marry a Jew, but  she didn't know 
if these two particular conversions were valid.  She didn't  know if there 
was a genuine kabalas ohl mitzvos on the part of Ruth and  Orpah when they 
converted, or if they just converted for marriage and their  conversions were 
insincere and never "took."  It may be that both Orpah and  Ruth converted 
but that Orpah's conversion was not "real" because there was no  kabalas ohl 
mitzvos on her part and no genuine intention to convert, while  Ruth's 
prior-to-marriage conversion /was/ a real one and did take.  And her  "amech 
ami" statement may have just been a reiteration of what she had already  said 
and intended to keep even prior to her marriage.
 
 
 
 
 


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


------------------------------------------------------------------- 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120601/fa713a65/attachment-0002.htm>