<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16443"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial>[1] From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <A
href="mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com">kennethgmiller@juno.com</A><BR><BR><BR>R'
Gershon Dubin wrote:<BR>> My recollection ... is that according to one man
de'amar in<BR>> the Gemara, Boaz collected the 10 zekenim to publicize
the<BR>> pesak of Moavi velo Moavis<BR><BR>R' Zev Sero responded:<BR>>
Which had nothing at all to do with the validity of Ruth's<BR>> giyur; there
is no indication that anybody ever doubted that,<BR>> then or
later.<BR><BR>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".<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Akiva
Miller</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent"
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[2]
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name><BR><BR>On 30/05/2012 4:32 PM,
kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:<BR>> I suppose this is not a problem
according to those who see Ruth's giyur<BR>> as taking place in the latter
part of the story, by "amech ami".<BR><BR>Isn't that passage the source for
most of hilchos giyur? Isn't that<BR>where she accepted the yoke of
mitzvos, and went through a sampling<BR>of "some of the light and heavy
mitzvos" as required in SA?<BR><BR><BR>> But what about according to those
who hold that they both converted<BR>> prior to marrying Machlon and
Kilyon?<BR><BR>I'm unfamiliar with these opinions. Who are
they?<BR><BR>-- <BR>Zev Sero
<BR>zev@sero.name <BR></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>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?!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>[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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> OR</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>[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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR><STRONG>--Toby Katz<BR>=============</STRONG><BR>Romney -- good
values, good family, good
hair<BR><BR><BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------
</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2
face=Arial><BR><BR></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>